I usually don't resign to early but when I do its because of the psychology of it. Some positions are not fun to play. Down a couple of pawns really hurts me a lot more than down a piece.

This is because good chess players use their pieces while I push pawns. It's too bad pawns don't have the option to stay pawns when they reach the other side.

"fail; fail again; fail better" - Samuel Beckett

 :)

 

Going back to the ratings debate I think monty's suggestion of using a  ?  (question mark) after peoples ratings (who have less than a certain amount of games under their belt) is a great and simple idea.

or perhaps sometimes a number is just a number  :)

A lot of rating systems (including USCF) label ratings as "provisional" when they're based on a small number of games, to indicate that the player's rating isn't well established within the system. On some internet playing sites, this is indicated by putting (P) after the rating. That might be a way to go here, and it should be easy enough to add to the site code, for players with less than 25 games or something. Erik? What do you think?

 

--Fromper 

Fromper wrote:

A lot of rating systems (including USCF) label ratings as "provisional" when they're based on a small number of games, to indicate that the player's rating isn't well established within the system. On some internet playing sites, this is indicated by putting (P) after the rating. That might be a way to go here, and it should be easy enough to add to the site code, for players with less than 25 games or something. Erik? What do you think?

 

--Fromper 

---

 we CAN do that. but really, when you use the Glicko system that should not be necessary. if you win or lose vs. somebody very very new your rating just won't change that much because they have a VERY high RD. makes sense?

littleman wrote: My friend thats what seperates the good players from the great ones there fighting spirit... They must have thought i lost this so its just a matter of time before i will lose the game since they know that they would be very likely to winin your position so they decided not to waist time and energy on it any further, but still i think we should fight untill there is no chance at all and i mean none!!. other wise we learn little to nothing on how to defend a weaker position and that lessens our overall skill in my personal opinion

---

 I don't necessarily fight to the point of checkmate when my position's dead lost, but if I can find any counterplay at all, I'll play on. I believe in giving my opponents every possible opportunity to blunder.

 

The one exception to this is when I'm playing at major OTB tournaments, and I know that I have another game later the same day. Sometimes, I'll resign slightly sooner than I would otherwise (though still not as soon as I drop a pawn!) just to save my energy and rest up for the next game.

 

--Fromper 

Unless there is a different formula for provisional or established, who cares?  We can see the number of games each player has played.  In my opinion, whatever the ratings, the players are stacked up in accordance with strentgh.  The top 25-50 players are probably right where they would be if you compared their Elo or USCF rating.  We have 3 people over 2200, and they are probably the top 3 players so far.  It just takes some more games by the other masters out their to catch up.  I doubt any lower rated player in real life is going to make the higher ratings here.  The top players are really playing some quality games.

A lot of rating systems (including USCF) label ratings as "provisional" when they're based on a small number of games, to indicate that the player's rating isn't well established within the system.

 

I like this idea. FICS uses the Glicko rating system, but like the USCF, they mark a player as provisional unless they've played several games. That way, when you see someone rated "1400P", you'll know their rating is only based on one or two games. 

 

 http://www.freechess.org/Help/HelpFiles/v_provshow.html

 

Would this really impact who or how you played? You already have access to their full game history if you want to check it out, and that's pretty telling.

yes I do think many guys can make high ratings here, and example of that was a couple of days ago I was trying to chanllenge a player who if i remember correctely was rated at about 2000 with just a couple of games played and i got the notice that he didn't play anybody rated above 1500, I also check his profile and he explained in his profile that he was more of a beginner to intermediate player coming back to the game after haven gave it up for a few years, that is one of the reason I was thinking of the rated games within a 100 or 200 rating points range

I think 1000 would be a more fair starting point

BigJimi wrote: I think 1000 would be a more fair starting point

---

 perhaps :) we'll see how things settle in after another few months to see if we are indeed inflated.

I don't think there's any real merit in even attempting to compare a Chess.com rating with USCF /BCF / whatever.   The chess.com rating is applicable to a group of people playing together in the same circumstances i.e. here.

 

In addition, you don't know what your opponents at the other end of the 'wire' might be using to assist them.  You don't get that OTB.

 

Sure, I know the chess.com rating skews wildy in the early stages, but everyone is subject to the same system - which - if we are honest and don't cheat - makes for a level playing field.

 

Those of you with an official, dare I say, 'real world' rating - thanks for coming in here and sharing.

Having not completed many games as of yet I find my rating certainly higher than in OTB games(1600-1700) having only ever achieved 1425 in OTB games over here in sunnt Scotland.

billwall wrote: If there was a way to restrict the ratings to the true OTB or correspondence ratings, that would be ideal.  I also like the idea of a floor.  When I was 2200 USCF, then dropped to 2000 and could go no lower, it was fun to play chess knowing that I could not drop below 2000.  I played lots of games out that may have drawn, and I risked it and lost to up and coming players.  I wasn't playing for a rating.  Then USCF changed the rules again and took away the floor.  At the other end, I don't think anyone should have a rating higher than 200 points above the strongest player they have played.  In other words, someone should not get a 2000 rating if they never beat anyone higher than 1800.  They should be stuck at 1999.  I see some players who have high ratings but have not played anyone stronger than several hundred points below them.  So if you want to go over 2200, you have to beat someone 2000 or better, but not a bunch of 1900 players or below.

---

 If you haven't beaten a 2000, you shouldn't be able to become one. And it makes sense that once you've proven yourself to be a certain level of player, you're ranking should denote that. I also don't understand how if you have a bad game and lose to an 800 player why your rating should drop 200 pts.

billwall wrote: I looked at ratings of 21 people rated over 1800.  Only 4 had a higher rating here than their real Elo or USCF rating.  People like Dembo, Volvk, Pernnoir, Mont-Reynaud, Schiller, Gill, Milanovic, and Khmelinitsky (all title players) have real ratings hundreds of time higher than here.  Here is a sample list of the rest (Elo or USCF rating / chess.com rating): Wall (2200/2169), Rogersky (2210/2107), BruceHayden (2200/2079), rowrulz (2265/2057), chessiq (1964/2048), erad (1891/1994), montey (2297/1890), littleman (1646/1888), Creg (1937/1838), startstek (2168/1844), matthelfst (1784/1843), and Jay (1850/1836).

---

Bill,

I think the ratings are under-inflated for top players, but for other players, they are definitely over inflated. In my case, I take a long time to play some of my moves, spending all that time analyzing all different scenarios. And I currently happen to have around 1800 rating here. In real tournament chess, I am sure I won't have that kind of time to analyze, and I am darn sure I will lose a lot more games. I think my real rating would be several hundred points below my rating here.

HI again i liked the idea about starting players at the ratings they played at O.T.B. would balance them out abit fatser i think . But other wise it truly doesnt matter after about 50+ games it evens out well enough so dont worry about it. If they are over rated think how easy it is to pick the points of them if they dont deserve them, if they do it speeds it up for them to reach there right level.....