players at ~300 elo and ~1300 elo play at the same level
Sort:
My rating on this account is about ~350 elo. Just revisited it after playing before I had a good understanding of chess and now trying to climb the ranks again. On another account, I have a solid 1200-1300 elo, but I’ve found that my win rates are the same while playing on both accounts. Is everything the same until you get to 2000?
Jan 16, 2023
0
#2
Everyone's win rate should be about 50% unless you're at the very top or bottom of the rating ladder.
It's all about blunders. Lower rated players blunder far more often, which is ironically why they might often times beat a higher rated opponent who is used to solid play, because they miss it.
Colby-Covington wrote:
It's all about blunders. Lower rated players blunder far more often, which is ironically why they might often times beat a higher rated opponent who is used to solid play, because they miss it.
This is obviously not true at all.
Expand on the obviousness. Stronger players get used to correct book moves and established opening variations. When a weaker opponent plays inaccurate or nonsensical moves, the correct response is often overlooked. That's exaxtly stronger players don't accept challenges from anyone <2100.
Colby-Covington wrote:
Expand on the obviousness. Stronger players get used to correct book moves and established opening variations. When a weaker opponent plays inaccurate or nonsensical moves, the correct response is often overlooked. That's exaxtly why most people don't play anyone <2100.
When a weaker player plays a nonsensical move, it is easy to punish. If your opponent hangs a piece every third move (like a 300-rated player would do) you simply take those pieces and you win easily.
It isn't impossible to construct a specific situation where a blunder is confusing and misleads the other player, but that is extremely rare in actual play.
magipi wrote:
When a weaker player plays a nonsensical move, it is easy to punish.
It isn't impossible to construct a specific situation where a blunder is confusing and misleads the other player, but that is extremely rare in actual play.
It is the most common reason why a weaker player manages to defeat a far stronger one, given that both are rated at reasonable levels of strength.
However, the issue is relative, seeing as what appears common to one player may very well be imperceptible to another.
Once you reach a higher level, you will have memorized multiple openings, including countless variations, transpositions, move orders and the best or second best response to each of the above. It is extremely common and likely to be confused by a weaker player's blunder who doesn't know theory, failing to capitalize on it and as a result lose the position.
Colby-Covington wrote:
magipi wrote:
When a weaker player plays a nonsensical move, it is easy to punish.
It isn't impossible to construct a specific situation where a blunder is confusing and misleads the other player, but that is extremely rare in actual play.
It is the most common reason why a weaker player manages to defeat a far stronger one, but of course it all depends on reasonable levels of strength and rating.
What appears common to one may very well be imperceptible to another.
Once you reach a higher level, you will have memorized multiple openings, including countless variations, transpositions, move orders and the best or second best response to each of the above. It is extremely common and likely to be confused by a weaker opponent's blunder who doesn't know theory, failing to capitalize on it and as a result losing the position.
Luckily, we have some actual evidence. There were several occasions when grandmaster made a "speedrun", creating a new account and playing until they reached some very high rating (3000 or something). So you can see a grandmaster play against players under 1000 for many games.
How many times does it happen that a low rated player's bad play causes him to win (or draw)? The answer is: it never happens. 9 games out of 10 the GM wins super fast, and in the 10th game the GM wins in a somewhat long game. The more blunders the low rated player makes, the faster the GM wins. Always.
The scenario that you are talking about (that a patzer, making a random blunder stumbles into an opening variation that just happens to be a deadly trap by sheer luck) is just incredibly unlikely.
Dont mind me just achievement hunting
magipi wrote:
Luckily, we have some actual evidence. There were several occasions when grandmaster made a "speedrun", creating a new account and playing until they reached some very high rating (3000 or something). So you can see a grandmaster play against players under 1000 for many games.
How many times does it happen that a low rated player's bad play causes him to win (or draw)? The answer is: it never happens. 9 games out of 10 the GM wins super fast, and in the 10th game the GM wins in a somewhat long game. The more blunders the low rated player makes, the faster the GM wins. Always.
The scenario that you are talking about (that a patzer, making a random blunder stumbles into an opening variation that just happens to be a deadly trap by sheer luck) is just incredibly unlikely.
You are committing a logical fallacy, I clearly stated that both players would have to be rated at reasonable levels of strength.
I also believe you're missing the point. The weaker player's blunder is of course losing, but the stronger opponent fails to capitalize on it due to the stark contrast between theory and the ridiculousness of the move. It's a psychological phenomenon in chess.
As you expand your opening repertoire, you'll notice that this is a very common occurrence.
Yes, I am completely missing your point. If my opponent hangs a piece, I take it and I am happy. It is much harder to beat an opponent who does not make ridiculous blunders.
Jan 17, 2023
0
#13
As your rating moves up, you play against higher rated players so your win percentage doesn't change much when your rating improves.
At your level that might be the case, but as difficulty rises and you are forced to study and memorize more abundant and complex theory, you'll quickly notice that unorthodox moves have a way of being extremely misleading. Especially blunders have this psychological effect when you can't find the correct continuation.
magipi wrote:
Colby-Covington wrote:
Expand on the obviousness. Stronger players get used to correct book moves and established opening variations. When a weaker opponent plays inaccurate or nonsensical moves, the correct response is often overlooked. That's exaxtly why most people don't play anyone <2100.
When a weaker player plays a nonsensical move, it is easy to punish. If your opponent hangs a piece every third move (like a 300-rated player would do) you simply take those pieces and you win easily.
It isn't impossible to construct a specific situation where a blunder is confusing and misleads the other player, but that is extremely rare in actual play.
It's not always easy to punish a nonsensical move from a weaker opponent, and very easy to get confused by it and end up blundering yourself. It's not rare at all to blunder in such a situation in my experience.
huddsblue wrote:
magipi wrote:
Colby-Covington wrote:
Expand on the obviousness. Stronger players get used to correct book moves and established opening variations. When a weaker opponent plays inaccurate or nonsensical moves, the correct response is often overlooked. That's exaxtly why most people don't play anyone <2100.
When a weaker player plays a nonsensical move, it is easy to punish. If your opponent hangs a piece every third move (like a 300-rated player would do) you simply take those pieces and you win easily.
It isn't impossible to construct a specific situation where a blunder is confusing and misleads the other player, but that is extremely rare in actual play.
It's not always easy to punish a nonsensical move from a weaker opponent, and very easy to get confused by it and end up blundering yourself. It's not rare at all to blunder in such a situation in my experience.
I agree. I have a friend who according to his rating should have a ~2% chance of beating me. He actually beats me far more often than that because I'm not used to playing against people who play like him (unsound queen moves and that sort of thing).
Yeah. Unorthodox players and all out attackers are extremely tricky to play against. One false move and it's curtains.
Exactly, missing a weaker player's blunder is the most common way stronger opponents are beaten. It happens to everybody. Personally, it's my greatest weakness. I have grown too familiar with certain lines and instinctively expect certain moves, making it hard to correctly address inaccuracies.
