Can you get a very high rating by seal-clubbing alone? I mean your rating goes up every time you win right, just by less if you're beating someone with a much weaker rating.
Printable View
Can you get a very high rating by seal-clubbing alone? I mean your rating goes up every time you win right, just by less if you're beating someone with a much weaker rating.
You can't, for example the games I play with my friend, for me a loss is like -14, a win 0. Not much incentive to play rated games with him.
I think the limit for rating gains is a -200 ELO difference, if you're playing someone with a larger rating gap they're basically freerolling you. Not 100% sure what parameters chess.com use but it's likely +-200 with a K-factor of 10 (how many points you win vs equal rated opponent).
I'd expect your rating loss to be 20 if your gain is 0, that's the usual extreme. If it is 14, maybe their K-factor is 7, but that seems low.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
To answer poop's question, you can inflate your rating a little if you play -150 rated players and basically perform slightly above expected over a large sample, but it will be tediously slow progress compared to just playing people closer to your rating.
You're also going to slowly run into better players, and if you're not challenging yourself and improving, your rating gains will decrease in value and ultimately start receding.
There's really not much incentive to club seals in chess, other than to massage your ego if that's your thing.
From what I can tell, expected win with 200 ELO difference is 76% for the stronger player, so if you're winning 80% of games against -200 players your rating will gradually rise. But as your rating rises, so too does the floor of an opponent at -200, so it's a self regulating system.
Against equally rated it's indeed +7 so checks out.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I was just thinking it would be funny if someone became a GM by beating 10,000 players rated as <1000.
So if Cocco's average opp is 1042 how is he still climbing? I guess some of them he gains points on but a lot of them must be freerolling him as you say.
I've gained 648 in rating in the past 90 days, 212 in the past 30. The opp avg just lags behind. I'm only playing people rated the same or higher than me (excluding the games against friends).
Assume I'll play the next 50 games only against players rated 3000. After that my avg opp rating would be 1234, and my own rating would be 2247 if I won all games.
Ok, let's see it.
What does your rating start out as? Say you're playing your first game, are you at 1000 or summat?
I'm surprised it's this low, I'm almost certain it's K=10 on gameknot where I used to play a lot (haven't player a proper game for a while now), and figured that was the online standard. A low K-factor means slower rating response to form, and less extremes in rating fluctuations, so some would say it's preferable. But you don't want it too slow, so it's not as simple as the lower the better. 10 is unlikely to be optimal though, that's just nice round human numbers in action. Maybe chess.com are getting this right with 7.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
It's complicated. Again I don't know chess.com's specific parameters (and surprise surprise I can't be arsed to check) but on gameknot the first 10 games, you get a provisional rating that can fluctuate wildly in the range of like 800 to 2500 or whatever depending on the rating of your opponents and your results. It's basically designed so master level chess players don't have to grind their way up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Gameknot's rating floor, I believe, is 800. Each player also has their own floor, which is -200 and then rounded down to a multiple of 100 from your rating peak, so my rating floor is 1700 since my peak is 1969. That means I can never drop below that rating, no matter how many games I lose.
Makes sense. What they probably do is start you at an "average" rating (whatever that is, let's say 1500), and the K-rating is very high for game 1, then gradually comes down to whatever is standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I think that "average" is 1200 on gameknot, but yeah before you actually play a game you do have a rating.
On chess.com when you start you're at 800 but yeah it's not that simple. Say you start by playing some blitzes and win, then when you play your first daily you're probably gonna be 1200 or even 1600 to start out. I've played several people with an initial rating of 1600, where they have had hundreds of rapids or blitzes played but no dailies.
So basically they assume you're a moron until you prove otherwise. lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Don't you have the same rating regardless of what types of games you're playing? I mean if it's all straight chess but with different time limits. Not including badugi or bukkake or whatever that weird variant is called.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
That's usually a good default setting in life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Nope, separate ratings for all formats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's definitely correct to have different ratings for different time formats, although you don't have a different rating for literally every time format you can think of (potentially infinite!).
Formats are a bit arbitrary and might vary from site to site, but as a rough guide...
There's classical (standard) chess, online that's like a day+ per move, and over-the-board it's multiple hours, perhaps two days, for the entire game, then there's rapid, which is like 15 mins to maybe an hour for the game, there's blitz which is the 5-15 minute range, and then sub 5 minutes is bullet, which is chess for crack heads, fun to watch but insane to play.
They require very different skills and strategies, so it doesn't make sense to have a global rating for all formats.
I mean to achieve a very high rating in bullet, you don't necessarily need to be a master level chess player, you just need a solid foundation, know some tricks (opening traps, premove traps, etc), and be very fast at calculating and moving pieces. For classical, the lack of serious time pressure allows for more complex calculation and therefore a higher quality game, requiring expert level opening knowledge, positional play, tactical play and endgame knowledge to succeed.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
:goldstar:
A quick update, cracked 1600 some days ago. Playing against some Icelandic IM now, and haven't been embarrassed yet! He had the initial 1600 rating so was paired against me, dude's between 2200-2500 on the quickies.
1600+ is moving into "respectable" rather than 1500+ which I'd call "above average". Next up is 1700+ which is "very respectable".
1400+ "average", 1300+ "casual", 1200+ "hobby", 1100+ "weak", 1000+ "shit", 1000- "give up".
That should be an official ranking system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I like this better than the usual system, "grandmaster" sounds too much like "grand wizard."
*waves*Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I actually won the game, he just resigned. Playing him felt exactly like playing a bot. Really strong play coupled with some really erratic moves. He blundered a minor piece fairly early, by midgame he had evened it out, and a couple weak moves from him to start the endgame gave me the edge. I used passed pawns to get a solid material advantage, in the end I had a rook and a bishop pair against his rook and knight. Apparently he pretty much only plays bullet and blitz.
I've been stuck at low 1700s for a while, some chess fatigue going on I guess. I wanna break 2000 though.
I've never broken 2000, I've got close but never reached that target. I'll be very surprised if you succeed in that goal, but good luck, certainly not impossible. You'll need exceptional opening knowledge (or be using an opening database) and consistently make very few middlegame mistakes. Breaking 2000 is extremely difficult, at least it was when I last tried.