I'm not talking about the 2000 rated person you were talking about in the thread. I was talking about Goyael specifically, hence why I quoted him in my post.
Did this guy take me seriously?
Sort:
Dec 7, 2021
0
#204
alphaous wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
alphaous wrote:
alphaous wrote:
I looked at his account one more time, and have come to this conclusion (NOTE THAT THIS IS ONLY A HYPOTHESIS): This account was made by a weak player, who let a strong player (let's say older brother) play games on his account for while. Well, his brother played rated games and catapulted his rating rather quickly to 2000. Now the little brother is left with a problem: he doesn't want to lose all those nice rating points, but he still wants to play some chess. So he decides to play only unrated until he can become strong enough to stay at 2000. He has been trying this for years now, and occasionally plays a rated game to test his strength, and gets promptly destroyed. He licks his wounds and tries again, and sometimes he beats strong players and sometimes loses to weak players. I was somewhat of an anomaly, as I have a stronger rating on other time controls. I have no explanation for the 3 move wins against an account that was promptly closed, nor other strange and downright suspicious games on his account, but this is the best explanation I can give that would cover the varying strength of his games, and why he has such a strong rating.
My theory.
Terribly unlikely. Your deduction skills are poor. How old are you?
I'm so sorry! I should allow you to exhibit your genius methods instead of giving a reasonable explanation that covers the varying strength of his games, and his suspicious leap in a short time in 2017, and why he appears to be afraid to play rated. But by all means, search his account and give a better hypothesis. Now I suggest you refrain from attacking my deduction skills without even giving ONE reason why my hypothesis was unlikely. Why are you being so toxic? Your demeanor suggests that you are simply trying to lord over us and be arrogant and are failing miserably. First, you tell me to slap myself with a fly swatter (which I suggest you do to slap sense into yourself because I have no idea why you are being so rude), then you say that you are better than me in chess, which was NOT related to our conversation. Now you say I have bad deduction skills, and say that it is obvious. It is not. I gave a perfectly plausible explanation but you apparently wanted to continue being rude. Then you inquire about my age! That has very little to do with deduction skills, which you, as a twelve-year-old who is acting like a toddler, should know. I am happy to hear your deduction if it is not a pile of toxicity like everything else you have put on this thread.
Sorry, I got mad so quickly that I forgot to ask you why you thought my deduction was unlikely before flaring off. I expressed the only problem I saw with it, but I thought it was still a strong hypothesis. If you don't mind, I would like to know why you disagree.
What a tedious thread...
Dec 8, 2021
0
#206
ChesswithNickolay escribió:
(calculation may be roughly off)
The chance of someone having a sibling is 78%
The chance that a person plays chess under the age of 18 is really low (50 Million people play chess on chess.com)
The chance that a person will let their sibling play chess on their account is low
The chance that the sibling will agree is low
There are much more likely theories that are much more likely to occur.
Like that the other player was drunk?
The chance of a player on chess.com being under 18 is probably not 'really low' at all...chess is encouraged in schools and I expect scholastic chess is a very big around the world as a driving force for new players...
So next time you swear at a player remember it could be a sweet little kid
Dec 8, 2021
0
#208
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
(calculation may be roughly off)
The chance of someone having a sibling is 78%
The chance that a person plays chess under the age of 18 is really low (50 Million people play chess on chess.com)
The chance that a person will let their sibling play chess on their account is low
The chance that the sibling will agree is low
There are much more likely theories that are much more likely to occur.
Well, aren't most chess players kids? And it doesn't have to be an older brother, it could be a friend who came to stay. It could be that the older brother ( I'm just using older brother as an example) was too lazy to get a Chess.com account and just played on the younger's account until he got one. Or he forgot his password and convinced the sibling to allow him to play. The sibling isn't unlikely to agree if the older brother gives him a toy, and he doesn't even have to agree because if he is out playing, then the older brother can sneak on his account. It could even be the younger brother, inspired by the older brother, becomes a better player than his brother, and unwittingly jacks up his older brother's rating. I think that all of these scenarios are a possible branch of my hypothesis, and it is likely that one of them is true, especially considering that kids are probably more likely to be able to play hundreds of bullet games a day, which @joy5555 does.
Dec 8, 2021
0
#209
Bruh I was actually gone. If you looked at my status before I was online, you could see that.
Dec 8, 2021
0
#210
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
alphaous wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
(calculation may be roughly off)
The chance of someone having a sibling is 78%
The chance that a person plays chess under the age of 18 is really low (50 Million people play chess on chess.com)
The chance that a person will let their sibling play chess on their account is low
The chance that the sibling will agree is low
There are much more likely theories that are much more likely to occur.
Well, aren't most chess players kids? And it doesn't have to be an older brother, it could be a friend who came to stay. It could be that the older brother ( I'm just using older brother as an example) was too lazy to get a Chess.com account and just played on the younger's account until he got one. Or he forgot his password and convinced the sibling to allow him to play. The sibling isn't unlikely to agree if the older brother gives him a toy, and he doesn't even have to agree because if he is out playing, then the older brother can sneak on his account. It could even be the younger brother, inspired by the older brother, becomes a better player than his brother, and unwittingly jacks up his older brother's rating. I think that all of these scenarios are a possible branch of my hypothesis, and it is likely that one of them is true, especially considering that kids are probably more likely to be able to play hundreds of bullet games a day, which @joy5555 does.
Again, what you described is possible, but it is greatly unlikely as compared to some of the other possibilities.
I suppose. It was the first and least accusatory idea that came to mind. I have one or two hypotheses, but I don't want to turn this into a cheating discussion and get this thread locked when there still might be some valuable insights to be had.
Dec 8, 2021
0
#211
polito134567 wrote:
ChesswithNickolay escribió:
(calculation may be roughly off)
The chance of someone having a sibling is 78%
The chance that a person plays chess under the age of 18 is really low (50 Million people play chess on chess.com)
The chance that a person will let their sibling play chess on their account is low
The chance that the sibling will agree is low
There are much more likely theories that are much more likely to occur.
Like that the other player was drunk?
I doubt that's the case. He consistently plays at that level, and I don't think people play drunk all the time.
Dec 8, 2021
0
#212
Don't drink and calculate, unless you're like @GothamChess and you think slight intoxication improves your play.
* Please note that I am not encouraging anyone to play chess while drunk, and I will not bear legal responsibility for any furniture damage due to tilting while drunk and throwing furniture out the window. Also note that I am against such behavior.*
alphaous wrote:
Yesterday I accepted an unrated 1 min game from a 2000 rated bullet player. I am 1500 blitz and 1000 rated bullet. I expected to get destroyed and maybe learn something, but to my shock, I won four out of our five games! I was ahead on time for most of the games, but I didn't just win on time, in most of the games I was dominating! So am I a secret prodigy, Is he overrated, or was he messing around since it was unrated?
EDIT: I looked at his account one more time, and have come to this conclusion (NOTE THAT THIS IS ONLY A HYPOTHESIS): This account was made by a weak player, who let a strong player (let's say older brother) play games on his account for while. Well, his brother played rated games and catapulted his rating rather quickly to 2000. Now the little brother is left with a problem: he doesn't want to lose all those nice rating points, but he still wants to play some chess. So he decides to play only unrated until he can become strong enough to stay at 2000. He has been trying this for years now, and occasionally plays a rated game to test his strength, and gets promptly destroyed. He licks his wounds and tries again, and sometimes he beats strong players and sometimes loses to weak players. I was somewhat of an anomaly, as I have a stronger rating on other time controls. I have no explanation for the 3 move wins against an account that was promptly closed, nor other strange and downright suspicious games on his account, but this is the best explanation I can give that would cover the varying strength of his games, and why he has such a strong rating.
EDIT #2: The first edit was from post #124 if anyone is confused.
bro did you know there is something called tilt right? bro i would have not lost that badly but i would have lost like 3-2 wen i am on tilt. people on tilt are SO BAD AT CHESSSSSSS
Dec 8, 2021
0
#214
This was not a one-time occurrence, you should look at his games. He has had plenty of unrated games versus lower-rated players in the past couple of years, and he doesn't do so well.
Dec 8, 2021
0
#217
TheRussianPhoenix wrote:
alphaous wrote:
Yesterday I accepted an unrated 1 min game from a 2000 rated bullet player. I am 1500 blitz and 1000 rated bullet. I expected to get destroyed and maybe learn something, but to my shock, I won four out of our five games! I was ahead on time for most of the games, but I didn't just win on time, in most of the games I was dominating! So am I a secret prodigy, Is he overrated, or was he messing around since it was unrated?
EDIT: I looked at his account one more time, and have come to this conclusion (NOTE THAT THIS IS ONLY A HYPOTHESIS): This account was made by a weak player, who let a strong player (let's say older brother) play games on his account for while. Well, his brother played rated games and catapulted his rating rather quickly to 2000. Now the little brother is left with a problem: he doesn't want to lose all those nice rating points, but he still wants to play some chess. So he decides to play only unrated until he can become strong enough to stay at 2000. He has been trying this for years now, and occasionally plays a rated game to test his strength, and gets promptly destroyed. He licks his wounds and tries again, and sometimes he beats strong players and sometimes loses to weak players. I was somewhat of an anomaly, as I have a stronger rating on other time controls. I have no explanation for the 3 move wins against an account that was promptly closed, nor other strange and downright suspicious games on his account, but this is the best explanation I can give that would cover the varying strength of his games, and why he has such a strong rating.
EDIT #2: The first edit was from post #124 if anyone is confused.
bro did you know there is something called tilt right? bro i would have not lost that badly but i would have lost like 3-2 wen i am on tilt. people on tilt are SO BAD AT CHESSSSSSS
And I do have some tilt horror stories, so I understand, but I don't think this was tilt.
alphaous wrote:
thing50 wrote:
What a tedious thread...
May I ask why?
So what if a 2000 lost a 1min unrated game!?
WHO CARES!?
Dec 9, 2021
0
#219
You know, if I think a thread is irrelevant, then I don't click on it, or I don't post on it. Perhaps you should do the same, because quite a few people do seem to care.
He's messing around with almost everyone he plays if that's the case.