Forums

Are the ratings accurate?

Sort:
Im_a_Crow
After a huge tilt from 1500 to 1370 which required a month to get over, I just recently hit my peak 1650 and had a little tilt. my question is that, Is is possible to reach a rating which requires better ability than you possess? or am I really of that strength and had a bad day? I have heard people say that some players can achieve a rating way higher than their actual strength due to luck, but they eventually get to their original strength. Am I 1650 or did I got lucky. Thank you
EwingKlipspringer

Im_a_Crow

to go somewhere you've never been you must think a way you haven't thought

Im_a_Crow

Great thought, but I dont think that answers my question.

Habanababananero

I fluctuate a lot. Some days (weeks maybe) I perform better and some worse.

My peak was somewhere around 1550ish (don’t remember exactly) and been stuck back at 1400 for a while now.

I think I’ll skip the mobile phone games and only play on laptop.

By the way, I’m above 1600 FIDE so it is complete nonsense the ratings here are inflated. More like deflated if anything, it seems to me.

Khnemu_Nehep

You were overrated.

baltarwizard

I see people on youtube getting new accounts with low scores just to beat new learning players. why would anyone want to pay for this behavior?

masterius77

Lol baltarwizard.. I know right?? I watch those vids and I know a lot of the streamers have a deal with chess.com so the person can get their points back but it must suck going into a game not knowing your playing an IM or NM and just getting demolished.

Cold_W1nter
Azuresretrogambit wrote:

the ratings are total BS. most of the ppl at 600 are smurfs. And the whole average accuracy of how well you played rating from stockfish is also BS. imagine a 100 playing like a 1200 for example. thats BS.

Says a player who is impatient because he wasn't 1600 in two months of unfocused casual play. I'm pretty sure that if you look at any titled or even skilled player they'll tell you ratings are accurate, a 2200 will easily crush a 600, and all their hard work does reflect through their rating.

jetoba

Ratings are an average of how well you play and an average of how well your opponent players. Your playing strength in a particular game might be 200 points higher or lower than your average strength and the same may be true for your opponent. A 2200 can lose to a 1900, who can lose to a 1600, who can lose to a 1300, etc. For that matter, in is not particularly rare to play 300-600 points higher or lower than your average rating (in OTB I've beaten players rated 500 points higher and lost to those rated 700 points lower - not often but it does happen).

The law of averages means that a solid 1500 strength player will occasionally rise for a while to 1650 or drop for a while to 1350, but will tend to drift back to 1500 (unless the player's actual strength changes, in which case the drift will be towards whatever that actual strength is).

wishiwereficher

I have seen big differences in play from many players all at the same elo. Don't relie on it imo.

jetoba
Azuresretrogambit wrote:
jetoba wrote:

Ratings are an average of how well you play and an average of how well your opponent players. Your playing strength in a particular game might be 200 points higher or lower than your average strength and the same may be true for your opponent. A 2200 can lose to a 1900, who can lose to a 1600, who can lose to a 1300, etc. For that matter, in is not particularly rare to play 300-600 points higher or lower than your average rating (in OTB I've beaten players rated 500 points higher and lost to those rated 700 points lower - not often but it does happen).

The law of averages means that a solid 1500 strength player will occasionally rise for a while to 1650 or drop for a while to 1350, but will tend to drift back to 1500 (unless the player's actual strength changes, in which case the drift will be towards whatever that actual strength is).

a 1500 strength player won't rise if they don't play like a 1500 strength player. Thats like saying since I've reached 800 I'll drift back to 800 because thats my actual strength. BS Thats a lie. my average and playing strength is 600. not 1000 or 900 or 1200 like stockfish likes to say some times. because the average is based on your opponent's rating. How you played is irrelevant.

People do not play every single game at the same strength. Sometimes they have flashes of brilliance and sometimes they are afflicted with chess blindness and miss things. If your average strength is 600 then you will play the occasional games at 800 strength or 400 strength and the rarer games at 1000 strength or 200 strength. Your opponents will have the same variability. Always playing at one strength is an inhuman consistency.

That variability is one reason that upset prizes can exist. When the law of averages has a lower rated player temporarily seeing more clearly than normal and a higher rated player temporarily overlooking things more than normal then an upset may occur.

When ELO was first codified Dr. Arpad Elo figured only two digits would be plenty because of that variability and it was others that decided upon using four digits to better differentiate players' strengths (it made pairing algorithms easier to justify).

The variability in how people play is one reason a stronger player rated 200 points higher than a weaker player will only score about 75% against that weaker player (maybe 5 wins, 2 draws and a loss in 8 games). On those occasions the higher rated player draws or loses that caused that player's rating to go down and now the statistical rating changes are calculated using a lower rating than the player's actual strength, with the result that later games provide more points for a win and cede fewer points for a loss until the player gets back to normal (the reverse happens when a player has a good game and scores an upset).

Some people are convinced of the myth that players will play every game at the same strength, but that is only a myth that ignores the existence of the very human reasons players have good days and bad days.

BoofinHard

#16 They are a massive troll.

Cold_W1nter
Azuresretrogambit wrote:
Cold_W1nter wrote:
Azuresretrogambit wrote:

the ratings are total BS. most of the ppl at 600 are smurfs. And the whole average accuracy of how well you played rating from stockfish is also BS. imagine a 100 playing like a 1200 for example. thats BS.

Says a player who is impatient because he wasn't 1600 in two months of unfocused casual play. I'm pretty sure that if you look at any titled or even skilled player they'll tell you ratings are accurate, a 2200 will easily crush a 600, and all their hard work does reflect through their rating.

pretty sure ppl like you are too afraid to play ppl your own rating so you smurf and stay 600. like shut up. You don't even know what i studied. Man if only there was not a filter on this site right now.

Really? You didn't even care to check my game history, I'm active and play players my rating or better all the time. If you're mad about losing maybe try to get better before accusing every opponent of smurfing?

No, I don't know exactly what you studied but I know it certainly hasn't made you a better player than any average player. Oh, feel free to ignore the filter and attack me with everything you got, I know it's the only way you can sleep at night, believing you won an argument because you came up with the most childish insult.

Cold_W1nter
Azuresretrogambit wrote:
Cold_W1nter wrote:
Azuresretrogambit wrote:
Cold_W1nter wrote:
Azuresretrogambit wrote:

the ratings are total BS. most of the ppl at 600 are smurfs. And the whole average accuracy of how well you played rating from stockfish is also BS. imagine a 100 playing like a 1200 for example. thats BS.

Says a player who is impatient because he wasn't 1600 in two months of unfocused casual play. I'm pretty sure that if you look at any titled or even skilled player they'll tell you ratings are accurate, a 2200 will easily crush a 600, and all their hard work does reflect through their rating.

pretty sure ppl like you are too afraid to play ppl your own rating so you smurf and stay 600. like shut up. You don't even know what i studied. Man if only there was not a filter on this site right now.

Really? You didn't even care to check my game history, I'm active and play players my rating or better all the time. If you're mad about losing maybe try to get better before accusing every opponent of smurfing?

No, I don't know exactly what you studied but I know it certainly hasn't made you a better player than any average player. Oh, feel free to ignore the filter and attack me with everything you got, I know it's the only way you can sleep at night, believing you won an argument because you came up with the most childish insult.

you're the one who started it. so maybe shut your trap if you don't like the response.

Yeah sure I "started it" by commenting on your post. You were also the one who was a troll that I've never witnessed offer anything helpful. But I could say the same to you, keep your trap shut if you don't like the response you'll get. In this case, an obvious distaste for your deconstructive and inappropriate behavior.

St4ffordGambit

Alright folks, lets keep the conversation civil, please... happy.png

Cold_W1nter

Yes sir, only pointing out consistent troll-like behavior and verbal abuse by our friend @Azuresretrogambit. I don't mind being blocked either, just means I don't have to listen to you going in circles trying to pin your comments on me happy.png

ChessMasteryOfficial

Achieving a rating peak can sometimes be due to a streak of good form, favorable matchups or even luck. However, sustaining that rating over time usually reflects your true playing strength.

David_Rivera

not at all