Low Rated Good Players

Sort:
Avatar of kongisumo

Hi. I had a game with a player rated around 800

His game was very good, and it seems like he had a real plan for the game and not just short term tactics until someone blunders that beginners (like me of course) usually have.

Checking his profile, he already played more than 6 thousands game.

And his current rate is much lower than his highest which was around 1300, and he was 1000+ consistently for around 10  years. But in the last few month he had a sudden drop of around 400 hundreds of rate points

Is the rating system actually means no much ? How can it possibly be ?

Avatar of x-4373414180
You can look at their list of played games to see if there are a lot of losses recently and you can also see if they were lost on timeouts.
Avatar of kongisumo
NervesofButter wrote:

Your moves 13-15 were just plain bad.

I know, it is not the issue I am pointing. My point is It feels like time and games in chess.com is more predictive than rate

Avatar of GaucheInTheMachine
Yeah these forums are helpful in that they focus on how you can improve.

But they're a real bummer when you just want to vent.

I'll sympathize with you though. Lower-level players regularly outplay their ELO by a lot.

I'm not really sure why, but it makes it more difficult to improve with regular play than I think it should be. 😕

It's possible that some lower-level players use assistance on critical moves. If they only use assistance for a few moves per game, there's no way for moderation to detect/prove that they're using unfair tactics. 🤷‍♂️
Avatar of GaucheInTheMachine
NervesOfButter: maybe not, idk. Either way, isn't that irrelevant to my point?
Avatar of XOsportyspiceXO

Play the position not the rating

Avatar of duntcare

theres 3 types of low rated players

1 low rated

2 tilted

3 should be higher rated but plays inconsistently

3 is probably a good example of me

plays too aggressively and fast

Avatar of GaucheInTheMachine
NervesOfButter: I'm not accusing anyone of cheating. It just seems that < 400 ELO players are better than they should be. The bit about assistance was a theory as to why that is.