ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
Because they are 1500.
I admit that was funny.
Why do people say that 1400 is low-rated
Sort:
BEAUTIFULBLACKMEE wrote:
What is considered high rating
One of the better definitions of "high rating" or "strong" that I have seen is "your rating +200pts"
Jun 23, 2019
0
#44
In blitz, I've seen masters rated in the low 1800s. But, I've often beat them, too. I'm pretty weak, despite an absurdly high percentile ranking. From this perspective, players over 2100 usually seem to know what they are doing.
Last week I played a GM who was about 2150. He outplayed me and had a clearly superior position when he lost on time. Even though he was only one pawn ahead in a rook ending and I had active rooks, I knew that my position was hopeless except for the clock.
1400 would be intermediate-advanced.
solflores wrote:
I'm 1400 and I'm 83rd percentile. How is that low-rated?
If you were 1400------------------1401 will call you, low rated player!!
Jun 23, 2019
0
#47
Pleiadian_Knowledge wrote:
Online ratings are totally pointless. They are neither inflated, or deflated. They are not an indicator of your playing strength nor an accurate gauge of how your OTB strength is. Why is this? Because OTB you are less likely to play a chess engine cheater, OTB you are less likely to play a sandbagger. Online you are more likely to play a cheater, and more likely to play a sandbagger. Why is this? Because of anonymity. My ratings are 1500 online, yet I have beaten a FIDE Master (2300) and beaten Chess hustlers in Union Square (NYC) who play about 2000 strength from what people have told me, and have beaten many people who claim to be tournament champions. But you wouldn't know that from my crap rating. So don't take it seriously. As for actual titled players on here, and on other sites, I believe they usually play other titled players online, and they know who they are playing, for the most part, so they don't have to be in the general population servers getting thrashed by chess engine cheaters, and the like. Play chess, have fun and don't worry about your rating. Actually, the rating you want to worry about is your "tactics" rating. It is said that your strength is really about how well you spot tactics, and combos, etc. How well you calculate through middle game positions. Work on that number. My opinion.
Online ratings don't correspond directly to OTB no, but it is a rough indicator of strength. My blitz rating on chess.com stays around 200-250 points ahead of my USCF. Depending on your blitz it might be more or less than that, but it is all tied together. As you get better at one you will get better at the other also.
Also the chess hustlers can be around 2000 playing strength, but certainly not all of them are going to be.
Tactics rating is good, but I wouldn't say it actually has anything to do with playing strength. My tactics rating is between 2500 and 2600, but that hasn't improved my rating that much. There all the people at the top that memorize the tactics and get tactics ratings of 10000+. They aren't any better at chess from doing those same tactics thousands of times. Tactics is very important until a certain level, but at some point it falls off. The crazy tactics you see in the puzzles rarely if ever occur in games. Once you are familiar with the patterns and can calculate then the usefulness of tons of tactics falls off.
chess_jawa wrote:
Pleiadian_Knowledge wrote:
Online ratings are totally pointless. They are neither inflated, or deflated. They are not an indicator of your playing strength nor an accurate gauge of how your OTB strength is. Why is this? Because OTB you are less likely to play a chess engine cheater, OTB you are less likely to play a sandbagger. Online you are more likely to play a cheater, and more likely to play a sandbagger. Why is this? Because of anonymity. My ratings are 1500 online, yet I have beaten a FIDE Master (2300) and beaten Chess hustlers in Union Square (NYC) who play about 2000 strength from what people have told me, and have beaten many people who claim to be tournament champions. But you wouldn't know that from my crap rating. So don't take it seriously. As for actual titled players on here, and on other sites, I believe they usually play other titled players online, and they know who they are playing, for the most part, so they don't have to be in the general population servers getting thrashed by chess engine cheaters, and the like. Play chess, have fun and don't worry about your rating. Actually, the rating you want to worry about is your "tactics" rating. It is said that your strength is really about how well you spot tactics, and combos, etc. How well you calculate through middle game positions. Work on that number. My opinion.
Online ratings don't correspond directly to OTB no, but it is a rough indicator of strength. My blitz rating on chess.com stays around 200-250 points ahead of my USCF. Depending on your blitz it might be more or less than that, but it is all tied together. As you get better at one you will get better at the other also.
Also the chess hustlers can be around 2000 playing strength, but certainly not all of them are going to be.
Tactics rating is good, but I wouldn't say it actually has anything to do with playing strength. My tactics rating is between 2500 and 2600, but that hasn't improved my rating that much. There all the people at the top that memorize the tactics and get tactics ratings of 10000+. They aren't any better at chess from doing those same tactics thousands of times. Tactics is very important until a certain level, but at some point it falls off. The crazy tactics you see in the puzzles rarely if ever occur in games. Once you are familiar with the patterns and can calculate then the usefulness of tons of tactics falls off.
I find all sorts of crazy tactics in my games. I think a fundalmental problem is that I didn't learn to look for and spot those crazy tactics by doing the type of tactics I suspect chess.com is giving players.
I do a fair amount, but not enough, combination problems. A type of tactics problems where your often forced to calculate chained tactics. At my level, it's mostly 2 tactics chained together.
For example, figuring out how to fork 2 pieces. Easy enough usually. But in one example of a recent puzzle, I forked a bishop and knight with a pawn. His knight takes one of my pieces with check, so had to take his knight with my bishop.
The conundrum for the opponent is this: his bishop is still under attack... will he notice that if he doesn't move his queen, it will now get trapped by my bishop, and I'll trade a bishop for a queen.
- BOLD lettering is the secondary tactic
Jun 23, 2019
0
#50
Caesar49bc wrote:
chess_jawa wrote:
Pleiadian_Knowledge wrote:
Online ratings are totally pointless. They are neither inflated, or deflated. They are not an indicator of your playing strength nor an accurate gauge of how your OTB strength is. Why is this? Because OTB you are less likely to play a chess engine cheater, OTB you are less likely to play a sandbagger. Online you are more likely to play a cheater, and more likely to play a sandbagger. Why is this? Because of anonymity. My ratings are 1500 online, yet I have beaten a FIDE Master (2300) and beaten Chess hustlers in Union Square (NYC) who play about 2000 strength from what people have told me, and have beaten many people who claim to be tournament champions. But you wouldn't know that from my crap rating. So don't take it seriously. As for actual titled players on here, and on other sites, I believe they usually play other titled players online, and they know who they are playing, for the most part, so they don't have to be in the general population servers getting thrashed by chess engine cheaters, and the like. Play chess, have fun and don't worry about your rating. Actually, the rating you want to worry about is your "tactics" rating. It is said that your strength is really about how well you spot tactics, and combos, etc. How well you calculate through middle game positions. Work on that number. My opinion.
Online ratings don't correspond directly to OTB no, but it is a rough indicator of strength. My blitz rating on chess.com stays around 200-250 points ahead of my USCF. Depending on your blitz it might be more or less than that, but it is all tied together. As you get better at one you will get better at the other also.
Also the chess hustlers can be around 2000 playing strength, but certainly not all of them are going to be.
Tactics rating is good, but I wouldn't say it actually has anything to do with playing strength. My tactics rating is between 2500 and 2600, but that hasn't improved my rating that much. There all the people at the top that memorize the tactics and get tactics ratings of 10000+. They aren't any better at chess from doing those same tactics thousands of times. Tactics is very important until a certain level, but at some point it falls off. The crazy tactics you see in the puzzles rarely if ever occur in games. Once you are familiar with the patterns and can calculate then the usefulness of tons of tactics falls off.
I find all sorts of crazy tactics in my games. I think a fundalmental problem is that I didn't learn to look for and spot those crazy tactics by doing the type of tactics I suspect chess.com is giving players.
I do a fair amount, but not enough, combination problems. A type of tactics problems where your often forced to calculate chained tactics. At my level, it's mostly 2 tactics chained together.
For example, figuring out how to fork 2 pieces. Easy enough usually. But in one example of a recent puzzle, I forked a bishop and knight with a pawn. His knight takes one of my pieces with check, so had to take his knight with my bishop.
The conundrum for the opponent is this: his bishop is still under attack... will he notice that if he doesn't move his queen, it will now get trapped by my bishop, and I'll trade a bishop for a queen.
- BOLD lettering is the secondary tactic
Sure games all have a lot of tactics especially in fast time controls, but how many endgames do you get where you are trapping bishops on an open board with rooks? The super high level tactics have a ton of strange stuff that just doesn't occur in games. Putting pieces en prise is a nice idea, but everything just has to align perfectly. I occasionally get to put pieces en prise in a game, but I have never had anything that looked like all those win the queen puzzles where you threaten forks over and over. Once you have the ability to calculate those puzzles, there isn't much of a point to continue doing the harder and harder ones in my opinion.
To Chess_jawa
Everybody has thier own reasons why they enjoy chess. I guess I like doing interesting puzzles, and trying to find in my own games the sort of interesting tactics and combinations I happen to like doing as exercises.
Those types of combinations do come up frequently in games, although I'm sure I only find a puny small fraction of them. 
Jun 24, 2019
0
#52
People massively overblow the chances that you play someone who is cheating online. It's convenient and helps massage people's bruised egos if they lose!
Jun 24, 2019
0
#53
If cheat detection software were anywhere close to 100% reliable, then online cheating would be extinct.
Pleiadian_Knowledge wrote:
glamdring27 wrote:
People massively overblow the chances that you play someone who is cheating online. It's convenient and helps massage people's bruised egos if they lose!
I actually know with 100% fact who is cheating online. I have cheat detection software.
I agree with blueemu and glamdring. If cheat detection isn't 100% accurate how can you be 100% sure if someone is cheating? I know I lose games to 1400 rated players. I dont care, it happens. Sometimes I have a hunch someone is playing far better than their rating, but if after a few games they dont want to socialize and they just keep making great moves, I will play someone else. At least it's good practice.
solflores wrote:
I suck
solflores wrote:
I'm 1400 and I'm 83rd percentile. How is that low-rated?
well in America I'm 11 and 1600 I'm 200 points away from top 50
Jun 25, 2019
0
#57
If you are meeting regular cheaters at a 1500 level they aren't very good at cheating otherwise they wouldn't be anywhere near 1500!
It is low rated because it is low rated.
Pleiadian_Knowledge wrote:
blueemu wrote:
If cheat detection software were anywhere close to 100% reliable, then online cheating would be extinct.
Not true. Mods still have to ban the cheaters. Too many games being reported to go through them all. It's reliable. No human in the world can play a game especially the middle game as accurately as a chess engine. In terms of probability there are 10^120 possible moves in a given position. Of course most of which are bad moves, but in the middle game there are so many possibilities, the chance of playing the lowest centipawn loss move in the middlegame is very very low. Yeah maybe you can play the best move in the middlegame on occasion, but to play the entire middlegame with perfect precision is totally unheard of. Even Magnus Carlsen himself can't play a perfect middlegame unless his opponent plays obvious blunders or mistakes, but subtle mistakes are very very hard to see, or require deep calculation. Of course a GM can deep calculate better than most people, but not to the accuracy of chess engine move after move after move in the middlegame. No way, never.
Chess cheat detection software focuses on this part of the game mostly. This is where you catch your cheaters.
Cheaters will play dubious openings thinking they are throwing off cheat detection, or make an occasional blunder trying to not get caught, or play the top 3 engine moves, thinking that cheat detection only looks for top engine play, or they play their own moves until they are losing, or vice versa, play engine moves until they are a comfortable lead ahead, and then play their own moves. But cheat detection software can find these patterns of play. Even if you want to use LeelaZero thinking the machine learning AI will play different human like moves based on it's training data, but see.... even Leela plays most of it's moves like Stockfish, only in certain positions does Leela favor a different move than what Stockfish would suggest. It's accuracy is still undeniable, and is definitely detectable by cheat detection software. You could even use Leela as the engine in the cheat detection software, so there is no hiding cheating at all. You will get caught, guaranteed.
It's onl
...the average is dragged down by people who have never played, but have decided to have a free game on the 'net.
I think that's the crux of the problem.