When I get to 1200, I’m gonna party. Maybe two scoops of ice cream or something.
is getting to 1200 even considered an accomplishment?
Sort:
Oct 26, 2021
0
#64
blueemu wrote:
It would probably take a lobotomy to get me to 1200.
THAT’S my problem!
CooloutAC wrote:
nTzT wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
potatotomato123456 wrote:
If you come back to chess after actually gaining like 500 points without you knowing, no. If you took two months to grind, yes. Depending on how you got it, the answer will differ
This is a good point only in the sense that if you are inactive for a while, your rating becomes more innacurate. And I think this website needs a way to deal with that, like other gaming sites that factor in rating "decay" to keep matches as competitive as possible.
You are once again demonstrating your ignorance... the system employed already deals with this. Look up how a glicko-2 rating system actually functions. You will quickly get to where you belong if you got rusty and didn't play for a few months, and then back to where you deserve once you are sharp again. Rating gain/loss alters with activity.
I am so glad this guy isn't in charge of anything.
bluemuu already answered my question. You are Trolling me hard. umad? Speedrunning is cheating. And no rating system on a site that sanctions it will be accurate, especially at lower levels, because multiple accounts are literally encouraged by it.
YOu know whats also suspect, when someones account goes dormant for a while. Then bewcomes active again and their rating literally instantly shoots straight up 400-500 points. hmm. Sound familiar? lol
No, it doesn't sound familiar.
Just saying, I don't care about whether or not you support speed running. To each their own. For some it ruins the one game out of a thousand they might play... for others they get to play a ranked game against a grandmaster and they even get the rating back if they lose.
All that I really care about is the fact that any impact it has on the rating system/pool is negligible and something a hopeless player such as yourself would use as an excuse.
CooloutAC wrote:
nTzT wrote:
Just saying, I don't care about whether or not you support speed running. To each their own. For some it ruins the one game out of a thousand they might play... for others they get to play a ranked game against a grandmaster and they even get the rating back if they lose.
All that I really care about is the fact that any impact it has on the rating system/pool is negligible and something a hopeless player such as yourself would use as an excuse.
you can keep implying that. But I think it encourages many people to make alts. And thats why I feel 75% of my matches are against people who don't even have 200 games played. Compared to LIchess where its probably like 20%.
You are only playing against a very small amount - if any at all - alt accounts, speedrunners/sandbaggers.
You are just bad at the game. Stop talking nonsense and using it as an excuse.
You are rated 400-500. An average account starts way above that. So you really think people are creating accounts and then losing a bunch of games just so they can play against 400 rated player who blunder their queen away? This is obviously ridiculous. None of these issues affect you.
Also, you are in a higher percentile on chess.com than on lichess. So wouldn't that mean you face more veteran players there than here? You are obviously facing lesser competition here. Your argument is complete nonsense.
Oct 26, 2021
0
#69
CooloutAC wrote:
Go ahead and look at my last match. Does it make sense to you?
Yeah, that looks like sandbagging. People like that should be banned.
Your last 2 games actually.
Yeah, that game looks wild. Either sand bagging or account sharing but who knows. That person's rating varies wildly. 16600 games though... wouldn't surprise me if he was simply having some drinks and hammering out some games and having a blast while doing it...
Report it and move on.
CooloutAC wrote:
nTzT wrote:
You are rated 400-500. An average account starts way above that. So you really think people are creating accounts and then losing a bunch of games just so they can play against 400 rated player who blunder their queen away? This is obviously ridiculous. None of these issues affect you.
Also, you are in a higher percentile on chess.com than on lichess. So wouldn't that mean you face more veteran players there than here? You are obviously facing lesser competition here. Your argument is complete nonsense.
Minh Le himself told me sandbagging is necessary for speed runs. I kid you not. right on his stream lol. On the other site i'm rated close to 1000. and have been steadily there since I started with very close matches most of the time with people having way more then 200 games. I just played a match right now on chess.com and its like the guy never played match before. in his case he has 1000s of games played. but I mean wtf. It makes no sense the matchups on this site. At least at my level, you can't take the ratings seriously at all. Its probably less of a problem the higher you go but this is where I ended up on here lol. Go ahead and look at my last match. Does it make sense to you?
If someone is losing games on purpose to lower their rank and to speedrun or something, they should be banned for it. You might just have played against some drunk dude to be honest, his highest rank was nothing special but it did look like he was losing on purpose though so I don't know.
Either way, none of this will prevent you from ranking up in the long-run... even short-term it just creates some variance in your rating. I get really good game quality even though there are some weird things that happen sometimes and the occasional cheater who gets banned.
Oct 26, 2021
0
#72
Wits-end wrote:
blueemu wrote:
It would probably take a lobotomy to get me to 1200.
THAT’S my problem!
As a Canadian, I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy!
CooloutAC wrote:
rich wrote:
1200 is nothing.
I disagree getting 1200 is like crossing the rubicon. The widest skill gap for a 100 point margin in all the rating pool is between 1100 and 1200.
What do you base this on? This is just false... you are saying that 2200-2300 is easier than 1100-1200. How do you even arrive at this logic? Dude... lay off the crack.
rich wrote:
nTzT wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
rich wrote:
1200 is nothing.
I disagree getting 1200 is like crossing the rubicon. The widest skill gap for a 100 point margin in all the rating pool is between 1100 and 1200.
What do you base this on? This is just false... you are saying that 2200-2300 is easier than 1100-1200. How do you even arrive at this logic? Dude... lay off the crack.
Never touched crack, I know very well you are on it coming from south Africa. I'm into benzodiazepines completely the opposite effect.
Who asked?
I didn't even reply to him and he replies to me all weirdly. Not sure what is even going on XD
rich wrote:
nTzT wrote:
I didn't even reply to him and he replies to me all weirdly. Not sure what is even going on XD
No, that isn't true at all, you replied to my post first you retard.
I quoted him, if you look carefully. 
You probably mistakenly thought I quoted you since he quoted you.
rich wrote:
nTzT wrote:
rich wrote:
nTzT wrote:
I didn't even reply to him and he replies to me all weirdly. Not sure what is even going on XD
No, that isn't true at all, you replied to my post first you retard.
I quoted him, if you look carefully. You probably mistakenly thought I quoted you since he quoted you.
So carry on smoking crack.
Funny how you go on a little insecure tirade when you think I quoted you. I didn't even read any of your comments in this thread. Hope your plan of smoking crack works out for you.
rich wrote:
nTzT wrote:
rich wrote:
nTzT wrote:
rich wrote:
nTzT wrote:
I didn't even reply to him and he replies to me all weirdly. Not sure what is even going on XD
No, that isn't true at all, you replied to my post first you retard.
I quoted him, if you look carefully. You probably mistakenly thought I quoted you since he quoted you.
So carry on smoking crack.
Funny how you go on a little insecure tirade when you think I quoted you. I didn't even read any of your comments in this thread. Hope your plan of smoking crack works out for you.
I didn't read any of yours neither you crackhead. I hope smoking crack works out for you, as for me only benzos.
Mate, so why did you reply to me when I didn't even reply to you? You really are on drugs, aren't you? Goodness. Explains your rating after 14 years on this website.
If you come back to chess after actually gaining like 500 points without you knowing, no. If you took two months to grind, yes. Depending on how you got it, the answer will differ
This is a good point only in the sense that if you are inactive for a while, your rating becomes more innacurate. And I think this website needs a way to deal with that, like other gaming sites that factor in rating "decay" to keep matches as competitive as possible.
You are once again demonstrating your ignorance... the system employed already deals with this. Look up how a glicko-2 rating system actually functions. You will quickly get to where you belong if you got rusty and didn't play for a few months, and then back to where you deserve once you are sharp again. Rating gain/loss alters with activity.
I am so glad this guy isn't in charge of anything.