ExploringWA wrote:
Based on nothing more than my own opinion, I’d say the great majority of Chess players are trying to improve.
Eh, maybe 50/50.
is getting to 1200 even considered an accomplishment?
Sort:
Why wouldn't 1200 be an achievement? If you were lower than that, and worked to get there, then congratulations on a wonderful achievement.
When I cracked 1400, I saw it as an achievement. Same for 1500. Probably won't make 1600, but if so, I'll call it an achievement too.
I think we decide for ourselves what our achievements are.
Oct 28, 2021
0
#104
ExploringWA wrote:
llama47 wrote:
ExploringWA wrote:
Based on nothing more than my own opinion, I’d say the great majority of Chess players are trying to improve.
Eh, maybe 50/50.
Is that your opinion?
Yes.
ExploringWA wrote:
maxkho2 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
maxkho2 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
maxkho2 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
maxkho2 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
nTzT wrote:
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.
my skill level has nothing to do with the fact most of my opponents don't even have 200 games played. the fact the matches don't seem very competitve one way or the other. Compared to the other site which doesn't seem to have these issues. My rating has been steadily increasing btw. So you go ahead and keep telling yourself i'm complaining about my rating which is not the issue.
"my skill level has nothing to do with the fact most of my opponents don't even have 200 games played."
I genuinely don't mean any disrespect, but it does. Most people improve enough after 200 games so as to reach a rating of at least 800. Now, that doesn't make you dumb or anything - there is a number of reasons why you've gotten off to a relatively slow start in chess that are unrelated to intelligence - but it does explain why most people you play have under 200 games played on their account.
I'm not following anything you said here how amount of games is related to rating. And I completely disagree that most people reach their limit at 200 games. Thats complete nonsense. If i was to make a new account right now I'd start at a much higher rating. But I consider that dishonorable. Or if I went and played 1000 games on a "training" account right now, improved my skills drastically then came back to this one maybe I could shoot it up fast like you did yours lol.
I never said that most people reach their limit after 200 games, nor would it make any sense for me to, given that I've played 6000 games and am still improving. What I did say, however, is that most people who have played 200 games or more are experienced enough to be 800-or-higher-rated, which is undeniably true. For reference, I was at 1300 after 200 games.
Udeniably false and nonsense because 800 is the avg rating of the whole community and a huge part of the playerbase, most who have more then 200 games, are rated below that. What a statement lol.
Yes, 800 is the average rating. But most people around that level only play for fun occasionally, like how I might log into world of tanks a few times a month. But if you’re dead set on improving, you’ll have more games... and generally speaking, a higher rating. And usually 800 or higher.
Most people play for fun at all levels. Sure its frustating at times but they still play because they have mostly fun times and enjoy the challenge. Are you under the belief everyone above 800 is getting paid to play? Another insane statement that justifies belittling and frustrating people. wow...
It seems like every single comment anybody on this thread makes needs a special translation just for you. Fine. Here is a translation of what B1ZMARK said in clearer English:
"Most people around 800 and below play with the only purpose of having a good time while playing the game ─ as opposed to people above that rating who often also play with the purpose of improving and/or winning. Both of these groups of people play for "fun", but for the former group, "fun" is just playing the game no matter how, while for the latter, "fun" is both that AND being good/better at the game".
Didn't ever think I would ever need to translate something like that to a full-grown adult, but oh well.
another demeaning comment. Nonsense to imply that most people below 800 are not playing to improve. And you expect them to post on these forums? And people above that are not playing for fun? Trying to improve is not fun? inferiority complex much? wow... lol...
It's not nonsense. Most chess players period are not trying to improve. Anybody will tell you that even from personal experience. The ratio of "recreational" chess players to chess players that are trying to improve is maybe 10 to 1, if that. And, of course, most recreational players will be lower-rated than most "serious" chess players. I hope I don't need to explain that. I also trust in your ability to deduce from these two facts that most lower-rated players will not be trying to improve.
Q: "And people above that are not playing for fun?" "Trying to improve is not fun?"
A: "while for the latter [group ─ most of the higher-rated people], "fun" is both that AND being good/better at the game"
Based on nothing more than my own opinion, I’d say the great majority of Chess players are trying to improve.
"But you're rated 750 and I'm rated 2200+, therefore your opinion is worth nothing compared to mine lol, so you should just shut up and go study some theory and not talk to anybody before you're at least 800".
- How cooloutAC thinks I think, probably.
assassin3752 wrote:
if ya ask me, 800 seems to low to be the average rating lol
Then you are out of touch with reality. Not everyone plays thousands of games and pays for membership, does lessons and cares that much about the game. A lot do, but still. If you have ever introduced someone new to Chess, getting them to just 800 isn't something that happens instantly. Even that takes time.
Oct 28, 2021
0
#108
nTzT wrote:
assassin3752 wrote:
if ya ask me, 800 seems to low to be the average rating lol
Then you are out of touch with reality. Not everyone plays thousands of games and pays for membership, does lessons and cares that much about the game. A lot do, but still. If you have ever introduced someone new to Chess, getting them to just 800 isn't something that happens instantly. Even that takes time.
Yeah but... it's not so unreasonable to exclude certain types of players when talking about averages. For example the average adult OTB tournament player in the US is something like 1500 USCF which translates to ratings over 1500 on chess.com. This obviously excludes millions of people who like chess, but not enough to do things like buy a book or travel to a tournament.
If you try to answer what is the average "serious" chess player, you'd get various exclusions depending on the different definitions of "serious." To some people, the way I studied and played, I was never a serious chess player. And in the same way, I don't call everyone who plays and improves a serious player.
Anyway, is 800 average? Well... it's one kind of average, sure.
Oct 28, 2021
0
#109
And in support of my last post... notice how the 2200 blitz guy says most people aren't trying, and the 900 rated guy says most people are.
I'm sure their definitions of "trying to improve" are very different 
llama47 wrote:
Yeah but... it's not so unreasonable to exclude certain types of players when talking about averages. For example the average adult OTB tournament player in the US is something like 1500 USCF which translates to ratings over 1500 on chess.com. This obviously excludes millions of people who like chess, but not enough to do things like buy a book or travel to a tournament.
If you try to answer what is the average "serious" chess player, you'd get various exclusions depending on the different definitions of "serious." To some people, the way I studied and played, I was never a serious chess player. And in the same way, I don't call everyone who plays and improves a serious player.
Anyway, is 800 average? Well... it's one kind of average, sure.
I totally agree. But given that Chess.com is a public website for any casual/new player a 800 average makes total sense. I don't consider myself that serious that I go play tournaments and stuff like that so I assume the people who do obviously have a much higher skill level than someone who simply makes a Chess.com account to play against their friend or so.
To me if I learn something that's good enough for me. I won't ever be some great player but I love the game. It's just nice to make progress, regardless of where someone is on the ladder . I neglected Chess a lot for the last months but I enjoyed other things more.
ExploringWA wrote:
I’m a bit under rated. I identify as a 1073.
edit: I went and looked and I am 66/29 in Rapid. By my best guesstimate I’m a 1006.
You are not underrated. No one cares what you identify as. You can identify as a transracial tri-species GM and no one would care. You are rated where you are because that's what you deserve given your performance.
Oct 28, 2021
0
#113
Caffeineed wrote:
I hate these posts
When I was stuck in my improvement, I hated posts like these too, so I'm sorry for that.
I wonder if this metric would make you feel any better? Let's rate players based on the most number of hours they've spent in 1 month studying chess.
Not playing chess. Not passively watching chess videos. Not staring at an engine's analysis. I mean studying, actually studying chess.
For me, I think the most was 80 hours in one month.
Most people have studied zero hours in their entire life so...
ExploringWA wrote:
You should go buy a sense of humor.
I am so damn glad you were joking...
Oct 28, 2021
0
#115
CooloutAC wrote:
What it all boils down to with you is an inferiority complex and you wanting to demean the OP and those praising him for reaching 1200 so you can feel suprior.
Eh, it's easy to make ungenerous psychological analyses like this...
For example the only reason you shout about how much speedrunning undermines ratings and sportsmanship is sour grapes i.e. it's psychologically more comfortable to tear down the entire enterprise of online chess than it is to accept you're not a good player.
Oct 28, 2021
0
#116
CooloutAC wrote:
llama47 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
What it all boils down to with you is an inferiority complex and you wanting to demean the OP and those praising him for reaching 1200 so you can feel suprior.
Eh, it's easy to make ungenerous psychological analyses like this...
For example the only reason you shout about how much speedrunning undermines ratings and sportsmanship is sour grapes i.e. it's psychologically more comfortable to tear down the entire enterprise of online chess than it is to accept you're not a good player.
Ironic, because the tearing down is being done by the speedrunners and the site themselves for allowing it.
Exactly. The whole damn thing is rotten, isn't it? Down to the core, since chess.com doesn't just allow it, they actually profit from it! There's no honor in these games, there's no glory in a good rating, in fact, having your rating isn't bad after all... oops, that last part was the point wasn't it 
Oct 28, 2021
0
#117
CooloutAC wrote:
llama47 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
llama47 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
What it all boils down to with you is an inferiority complex and you wanting to demean the OP and those praising him for reaching 1200 so you can feel suprior.
Eh, it's easy to make ungenerous psychological analyses like this...
For example the only reason you shout about how much speedrunning undermines ratings and sportsmanship is sour grapes i.e. it's psychologically more comfortable to tear down the entire enterprise of online chess than it is to accept you're not a good player.
Ironic, because the tearing down is being done by the speedrunners and the site themselves for allowing it.
Exactly. The whole damn thing is rotten, isn't it? Down to the core, since chess.com doesn't just allow it, they actually profit from it! There's no honor in these games, there's no glory in a good rating, in fact, having your rating isn't bad after all... oops, that last part was the point wasn't it
rating is a tool to create competitive matches and follow personal progress. Its a rough gauge of skill level, but something different from rank imo. And yes, your sarcasm is the actual truth. But the ratings are more accurate the higher they are, its the beginner and newcomer that are most disparaged by speedrunners. Which make climbing past that hurdle and even greater accomplishment for the OP.
Well, it's true that at lower ratings you have to deal with a more opponents who are... what's a good word... inauthentic, and that would be very frustrating. Opponents who don't take the game seriously (whether it's by rating manipulation, or outright cheating or stalling) is the same reason I'm afraid to try seriously playing rapid games here. So I'm sorry for that, but at the same time, I don't think popular streamers speedrunning makes any difference.
llama47 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
llama47 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
llama47 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
What it all boils down to with you is an inferiority complex and you wanting to demean the OP and those praising him for reaching 1200 so you can feel suprior.
Eh, it's easy to make ungenerous psychological analyses like this...
For example the only reason you shout about how much speedrunning undermines ratings and sportsmanship is sour grapes i.e. it's psychologically more comfortable to tear down the entire enterprise of online chess than it is to accept you're not a good player.
Ironic, because the tearing down is being done by the speedrunners and the site themselves for allowing it.
Exactly. The whole damn thing is rotten, isn't it? Down to the core, since chess.com doesn't just allow it, they actually profit from it! There's no honor in these games, there's no glory in a good rating, in fact, having your rating isn't bad after all... oops, that last part was the point wasn't it
rating is a tool to create competitive matches and follow personal progress. Its a rough gauge of skill level, but something different from rank imo. And yes, your sarcasm is the actual truth. But the ratings are more accurate the higher they are, its the beginner and newcomer that are most disparaged by speedrunners. Which make climbing past that hurdle and even greater accomplishment for the OP.
Well, it's true that at lower ratings you have to deal with a more opponents who are... what's a good word... inauthentic, and that would be very frustrating. Opponents who don't take the game seriously (whether it's by rating manipulation, or outright cheating or stalling) is the same reason I'm afraid to try seriously playing rapid games here. So I'm sorry for that, but at the same time, I don't think popular streamers speedrunning makes any difference.
What makes you avoid rapid? More cheaters in higher time controls or what?
Oct 28, 2021
0
#119
nTzT wrote:
What makes you avoid rapid? More cheaters in higher time controls or what?
Cheaters and stallers, yeah. It's probably not as bad as I imagine, but I know they exist and I'd rather not deal with them.
I don't know if "staller" is a common word. I mean people who stop playing when they're losing and let their clock run for 20 minutes.
Well, they're probably not "people" because it's hard for me to imagine an adult doing this. They're probably little kids.
Oct 28, 2021
0
#120
CooloutAC wrote:
llama47 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
llama47 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
llama47 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
What it all boils down to with you is an inferiority complex and you wanting to demean the OP and those praising him for reaching 1200 so you can feel suprior.
Eh, it's easy to make ungenerous psychological analyses like this...
For example the only reason you shout about how much speedrunning undermines ratings and sportsmanship is sour grapes i.e. it's psychologically more comfortable to tear down the entire enterprise of online chess than it is to accept you're not a good player.
Ironic, because the tearing down is being done by the speedrunners and the site themselves for allowing it.
Exactly. The whole damn thing is rotten, isn't it? Down to the core, since chess.com doesn't just allow it, they actually profit from it! There's no honor in these games, there's no glory in a good rating, in fact, having your rating isn't bad after all... oops, that last part was the point wasn't it
rating is a tool to create competitive matches and follow personal progress. Its a rough gauge of skill level, but something different from rank imo. And yes, your sarcasm is the actual truth. But the ratings are more accurate the higher they are, its the beginner and newcomer that are most disparaged by speedrunners. Which make climbing past that hurdle and even greater accomplishment for the OP.
Well, it's true that at lower ratings you have to deal with a more opponents who are... what's a good word... inauthentic, and that would be very frustrating. Opponents who don't take the game seriously (whether it's by rating manipulation, or outright cheating or stalling) is the same reason I'm afraid to try seriously playing rapid games here. So I'm sorry for that, but at the same time, I don't think popular streamers speedrunning makes any difference.
Thankyou for admitting that. Speedrunners encourage it because people want to imitate these streamers they follow who are leading by example. But for these reasons the OP's accomplishment should be realized as even more impressive.
1200 is a perfectly good goal.
When I first became interested in chess, my plan was to get an online rating of 1300 and then quit forever.
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.
my skill level has nothing to do with the fact most of my opponents don't even have 200 games played. the fact the matches don't seem very competitve one way or the other. Compared to the other site which doesn't seem to have these issues. My rating has been steadily increasing btw. So you go ahead and keep telling yourself i'm complaining about my rating which is not the issue.
"my skill level has nothing to do with the fact most of my opponents don't even have 200 games played."
I genuinely don't mean any disrespect, but it does. Most people improve enough after 200 games so as to reach a rating of at least 800. Now, that doesn't make you dumb or anything - there is a number of reasons why you've gotten off to a relatively slow start in chess that are unrelated to intelligence - but it does explain why most people you play have under 200 games played on their account.
I'm not following anything you said here how amount of games is related to rating. And I completely disagree that most people reach their limit at 200 games. Thats complete nonsense. If i was to make a new account right now I'd start at a much higher rating. But I consider that dishonorable. Or if I went and played 1000 games on a "training" account right now, improved my skills drastically then came back to this one maybe I could shoot it up fast like you did yours lol.
I never said that most people reach their limit after 200 games, nor would it make any sense for me to, given that I've played 6000 games and am still improving. What I did say, however, is that most people who have played 200 games or more are experienced enough to be 800-or-higher-rated, which is undeniably true. For reference, I was at 1300 after 200 games.
Udeniably false and nonsense because 800 is the avg rating of the whole community and a huge part of the playerbase, most who have more then 200 games, are rated below that. What a statement lol.
Yes, 800 is the average rating. But most people around that level only play for fun occasionally, like how I might log into world of tanks a few times a month. But if you’re dead set on improving, you’ll have more games... and generally speaking, a higher rating. And usually 800 or higher.
Most people play for fun at all levels. Sure its frustating at times but they still play because they have mostly fun times and enjoy the challenge. Are you under the belief everyone above 800 is getting paid to play? Another insane statement that justifies belittling and frustrating people. wow...
It seems like every single comment anybody on this thread makes needs a special translation just for you. Fine. Here is a translation of what B1ZMARK said in clearer English:
"Most people around 800 and below play with the only purpose of having a good time while playing the game ─ as opposed to people above that rating who often also play with the purpose of improving and/or winning. Both of these groups of people play for "fun", but for the former group, "fun" is just playing the game no matter how, while for the latter, "fun" is both that AND being good/better at the game".
Didn't ever think I would ever need to translate something like that to a full-grown adult, but oh well.
another demeaning comment. Nonsense to imply that most people below 800 are not playing to improve. And you expect them to post on these forums? And people above that are not playing for fun? Trying to improve is not fun? inferiority complex much? wow... lol...
It's not nonsense. Most chess players period are not trying to improve. Anybody will tell you that even from personal experience. The ratio of "recreational" chess players to chess players that are trying to improve is maybe 10 to 1, if that. And, of course, most recreational players will be lower-rated than most "serious" chess players. I hope I don't need to explain that. I also trust in your ability to deduce from these two facts that most lower-rated players will not be trying to improve.
Q: "And people above that are not playing for fun?" "Trying to improve is not fun?"
A: "while for the latter [group ─ most of the higher-rated people], "fun" is both that AND being good/better at the game"