Why should you even expect such a correlation? Premium memberships just help the people who buy them improve. You should not expect much ratings difference because there are more basic members and the chances are high that some will have the same ratings as the premium members. But if you compare the average ratings between the two groups, I would suspect that premium members have a higher average rating because they are more serious about their chess.
Are memberships working?
Sort:
You seem to be a good player! Have a good day :)
Why does a paying player here have to have better ratings than basic accounts? That is totally irrelevant. This thread's topic obviously was created out of boredom.
Why irrelevent? Don't you get all the training tools if you have a membership?
May 24, 2009
0
#6
I can't speak for anyone else, but I went with a premium membership to have unlimited access to the tactics trainer... not that it has helped so far :) On a more philosophical note: This seems to be a really good community in which I can learn a lot and have fun and somebody has to pay the bills.
No, but there are many people like me who don't even use them... You can't BUY ratings. I pay 2 bucks a month because, mainly, I like the site and I get lots of enjoyment from it. Although I don't use the vacation, it is good security to have too in case you can't reach a computer.
This community is really great, no question. I would get a membership, I hope ,seeing I have joined the site on Jan 08 and only started to realise there was a public profile page... and that I could write things...
May 24, 2009
0
#9
I think the Tactics Training alone is worth the money.
Pkus, it's not even that expensive. I guess with one less visit to Starbucks each month and I can pay my membership. So, that's really cheap.
Cool.
MarioGabriel wrote:
I think the Tactics Training alone is worth the money.
Pkus, it's not even that expensive. I guess with one less visit to Starbucks each month and I can pay my membership. So, that's really cheap.
There was once a person who started a thread about trying to find a person to pay a blind membership to the person. It angered me, because there is always some dumb hearted person who actually believes the person is needy. I would be 95% certain they are scamming. I agree, two bucks a month is well worth it to a person.
ChessMastora, paying won't make you a better player, but because you commited to the site, people usually get better. I don't know how else to explain it.
May 24, 2009
0
#12
Agree with Gandycreek. I was happy to pay to have access to extra learning tools. If you pay for the year it is very cheap. I am a complete beginner who is serious about learning. There are some fabulous people who play live unrated occasionally and are happy to teach a beginner.. The downside is that also can pick up sneering comments when people realise your ability.
We beginners need encouragement please
Hope you get good results!
Membership IMPROVES a rating because you get more Tactics Trainer...
Nelso_125 wrote:
Membership IMPROVES a rating because you get more Tactics Trainer...
er assuming that the paying member uses all the extra training available, Chessmastora you think that after you become a paying member, you start using all the extra functions, which is simply not the case, after a week of all the EXTRAS trust me, You'll be bored.
You either work on your chess or you don't, paying doesn't change your attitude over the long run. For those that seriously work on their chess, this can be used as a tool to achieve that. Along side the personal study, books, and OTB games.
May 25, 2009
0
#16
Hi, are you asking if paying for a membership in this site results in chess improvement?
For the average person, in my opinion, chess improvement is very difficult. Players like me get stuck at a certain plateau for years and have a hard time getting past that. It's difficult to know what work is helpful for improvement at a particular stage of development, and then if you are lucky enough to know that, it's difficult to have the discipline to do the work.
What holds us back? Is it what we don't yet know? Is it what we think we already know?
I don't think buying a chess.com membership will answer all questions and lead to chess enlightenment, but it probably doesn't hurt any either.
Good luck.
ChessMastora wrote:
To me it seems there is not much difference between the ratings of basic members and those who have paid memberships. Am I wrong or is it that people who pay don't live up to their money?
'It seems to me' is not widely recognised as a statistical method. My hypothesis, which i'm too lazy to test, is that actually there is a correlation between average rating and membership since people who bother to join are probably more into the game and therefore better on average.
My rating averages between 1400-1500, but I have an excellent time here on Chess.com and really enjoy playing chess here.
I decided to become a paying member for two reasons:
1. To learn more and improve my chess skills.
2. And to support Chess.com. :)
Cleptomania wrote......
.....For the average person, in my opinion, chess improvement is very difficult. Players like me get stuck at a certain plateau for years and have a hard time getting past that. It's difficult to know what work is helpful for improvement at a particular stage of development, and then if you are lucky enough to know that, it's difficult to have the discipline to do the work.
What holds us back? Is it what we don't yet know? Is it what we think we already know? ...........
Yes, and yes.
To me it seems there is not much difference between the ratings of basic members and those who have paid memberships. Am I wrong or is it that people who pay don't live up to their money?