GameKnot: Chess related, Chess Ratings

Chess related: Chess Ratings

« Back to forum

From

Message

kurushi
21-Jan-09, 02:10

Chess Ratings

Ratings! we all have one. They're the best way to accurately gauge a players ability in a single nugget of information. They can, however, often be misleading and manipulated in to inaccuracy (playing the lowest possible opponent rating to raise odds of winning, for example). To be fair, they're not meant to be infallible just a reasonable measurement of skill but I was curious if anyone takes any additional steps to make their rating a fairer reflection?
For example, I've tried to keep my average opponent rating within 50 of my average player rating. That way any improvement is hopefully a natural development on my behalf but I can still play a 1250 if I then follow with a 1650. (It can be tricky maintaining this due to tournaments though).
Ultimately, of course, it's all about the fun of playing the game and it would be unwise to focus too much on ratings, I'm just interested if anyone shares my observations.

paranoidyoshi
21-Jan-09, 08:18

Regarding ratings

I haven't played many OTB rated tournaments, and most of them were from when I was first learning to
play chess at around 12 or 13. So my USCF rating is a measly 1062! I don't think it's completely fair -- I
played in an unrated G/15 tournament a while back, and defeated a 1700-rated player on time (and only
down a pawn in an otherwise equal middlegame). I'd probably be rated 1300 (USCF) if ratings were
truly fair. As to GK, I think my rating here is a tad inflated, mainly because there's a higher rate of blunders
on this site than over the board.

blake78613
21-Jan-09, 12:47

I think there are less blunders, on GK than over the board. I think the distribution of rating points for CC flatter than OTB. In CC games Whites initiative lasts for a long time. If fact Hans Berliner thinks that White should be able to maintain his initial edge indefinitely. Max Euwe claimed that there probably about a 100 players in the world that can play near perfect chess at CC. Euwe stated that you should play at least a class stronger at CC than OTB.

Most strong players avoid playing weaker players because your win to loss ratio has to be 20-1 just to stay even in rating points. The best CC players can still beat computer programs.

yusuf_prasojo
12-Apr-09, 11:00

Look at your ratings! I think it is true that there are more blunders at lower rating. I myself play my games at blitz level. I guess at above 2000 they tend to play the game like in correspondence chess.

So kurushi, how can you have a fairer reflexion of your skill from GK rating if one is using database, another using real chessboard beside his computer, another using chess program, and another is not even using his head?

Yes you can play the lowest possible opponent rating to raise winning. But how low? I won against lower rated players and my rating was decreased. Off course I'm not against the fact that you really can do it, as the real OTB rated tournaments are actually not for everyone.

africanboy
03-May-09, 06:47

OTB

what are OTB tournaments?

algol
03-May-09, 06:59

OTB

Over-The-Board: Where the players sit at a chessboard at the same time.

tactical_abyss
03-May-09, 07:54

Deleted by tactical_abyss on 03-May-09, 14:14.

tactical_abyss
03-May-09, 11:06

Deleted by tactical_abyss on 03-May-09, 14:14.

shema_yisrael
18-May-09, 10:41

Deleted by shema_yisrael on 18-May-09, 10:42.

shema_yisrael
18-May-09, 10:49

Re:

I used to do what you are doing, and for exactly the same purpose. I found, however, that Emanuel Lasker's
observation was true all too often: "A game of chess played by men of equal strength, and played
accurately, will end in a draw, and it is apt to be dull." By choosing significantly stronger or weaker
opponents, there is much more of the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. For me, there's no greater
thrill than exploiting a superior opponent's error!
*
With uneven ratings, there are also greater opportunities for learning and for teaching. I used to think that it
would only be ethical to play such games if they were unrated, but now I think that "the laborer is worthy of
his hire." If I lose a few points to a superior opponent, I think of it as tuition. Likewise, if I am going to
teach my opponent a lesson, I don't mind being paid for it.

untateve
18-May-09, 15:18

I like to play a mix of games with opponents who are equivalent to my rating and those who are 100-200 points above me. This is why I really enjoy the mini-tournaments here. It's a quick and easy way to get a structured mix of opponents.

I like playing those equivalent to me as it makes for even, hard fought games. I like playing opponents who are stronger than me because I learn more in a loss than I do in a win (although I've just recently defeated two 1700+ opponents). I also believe you learn more playing opponents who are stronger than you.

easy19
21-May-09, 01:27

I think i am 1 of the few who players rated games against much lower rated opponents.

About 50% of my games is against 1500 to 1900 rated players i only have about 10% of my games against equal or higher rated opponents and the remains around 2000

so i have some mind cracking games running and the rest is relax and sit back games.
I do not think i can get better at chess then i already am, my progress has stopped.

yusuf_prasojo
22-May-09, 08:29

"I do not think i can get better at chess then i already am, my progress has stopped"

How can it be? I think as long as we know what we don't know, what we cannot do, then there is still a room for improvement.

Yesterday I practiced mating with a bishop plus a knight. Just in case. It could happen anytime in OTB and I thought I should be able to do it in 50 moves, especially in blitz. Now I can do it very fast, using the shortest way. Now I think I'm better than before

easy19
22-May-09, 09:13

Yusuf

Perhaps i can improve some skills. But getting beyond the Master lvl requires a special way of thinking and a special trained memory... at my age i think (in my case) it is near impossible to improve that in a way that it makes a difference..

Grandmasters and Masters are capable of memorizing many positions and games and can even play blindfolded. that is something you have to learn wen you are really young.
So the difference between me 2200+ and a 2300+ is as big for me as the difference between you and me..

yusuf_prasojo
23-May-09, 08:07

If the problem is the age, may be you are right. May be. I'm not too young either, but I'm studying this game seriously to become a master this year. The master norm is not my objective. The real objective is the playing strength. The norm will just follow. I had a dream to become a GM when I was young. Now I believe I still have the chance to become one someday. I think it is better for me to try hard than wasting my time playing chess for nothing.

And I can feel that I'm making progress. I think my current blitz skill level is 1800. Last month I guess it was 1500 or 1600. Tomorrow is my second non-master blitz tournament, if my level is truly 1800 I should be able to win approximately 3 points out of 7 (In my first blitz tournament I won no games!).

aijp
25-May-09, 16:32

Too old to improve?

Latvian Jānis Klovāns earned his GM title at 62. However he had likely been playing at the GM level for a long time, but was prevented from participating in FIDE events by the Soviets (presumably for political reasons).

easy19
25-May-09, 23:47

It is not that i am to old to improve I just say that the way the mind works is very hard to change. At young age you can train memory and other things easy later on it gets harder and harder to change the ways you learnt at young age..

I have been trying and training blind folded chess for some time now. between move 7 and 10 I fail to visualize the position. if i tryed/trained that at age under 10 i think i could have improved that with more then 10 or a entire game

blake78613
27-May-09, 11:59

You can certainly do things to improve your technique as you grow older. I think what you lack as you grow older is the drive and desire to win that you had when you were younger.

billyjaxin
03-Jul-09, 16:50

blindfold

Are you sure you need to learn blindfold chess very young? My father could play two blindfold games simultaneously and he was not a master level player, although he played better than anyone else I knew. He also didn't devote a lot of time to studying the game seriously. I don't know what age he learned to play, but I don't remember my grandfather playing chess.

My understanding was that learning to visualize the board well enough to play blindfold is a vital part of learning to play very well.

Any comments?

kurushi
04-Sep-09, 14:10

Deleted by kurushi on 05-Sep-09, 03:45.

« Back to forum

chess online