It sounds like some of you are jealous of jerry's achievements. It takes a lot of skill and concentration to achieve a 4200 rating. It is not his fault if the average player is 1500+, mainly because there are not enough 2000+ players for him to compete with.
Unfortunately, this isn't the case, he did, as it has been put, 'cherry-pick' his opponents.
(Sorry TheGrobe, stealing even more of your stuff, or so it would appear...)
It sounds like some of you are jealous of jerry's achievements. It takes a lot of skill and concentration to achieve a 4200 rating. It is not his fault if the average player is 1500+, mainly because there are not enough 2000+ players for him to compete with.
I've heard anecdotally that he won't accept challenges from at least one of them in particular....
Chessnetwork hasn't said that he thinks that the rating points has any tangible value. He hasn't said he is the greatest player on the site, he hasn't hurt anyone else and is not hurting anyone elses experience here, he simply asked if it was possible to make it to a 10000 rating.
Why is it necessary to attack him for what he is doing?
Well the reason I got annoyed is because ChessNetwork of course already knows the answer to this question. He just wanted to create a forum where everyone could talk about him and his rating - which of course we are all doing now. Mission Accomplished!
Did he tell you this? Did I miss a post saying that he already knew the answer and only posted for the reasons you have put up? How do you know he posted for these reasons? Or are you just guessing?
No you didn't miss a post. Seriously, this is just common sense. ChessNetwork knows how easy it was for him to get to 4000. Ummmm, when someone has thousands of wins against 10 or so losses, they are not exactly sweating it out. Do you understand? The only question is if he is willing to play thousands of more uneventful games to get there. He knows it's no more difficult to get to 5000... 6000... etc. Want to know how I know? Because like I said, he's already gotten to 4000+ without even slightly breaking a sweat. Unless chess.com changes the ratings formula where it doesn't give a point per win no matter the players' ratings... or as others suggested, possibly wipe everyone's stats... there is no limit to how high ChessNetwork can get as long as he cherry picks his opponents like he has. Suggo, you don't think he already knows this???
He may know this, he may not. There are so many different possibilities as far as this post goes. He may be wondering if there is a cap on the rating at some point, I certainly wonder if this is true. It would not be a surprise if the programming has a cap of 5000 in it's code. It would be possible that the person writing the code thought that 5000 was unachievable and capped it...so maybe he was asking to find out if that was the case. Another possibility is he is wondering if he has the stamina and the patience to continue on to achieve this goal, thus his purpose for the thread may have been to try and get motivation to continue rather than just for people to talk about him and his rating as an ego boosting exercise.
There are so many different reasons people do things I find it amazing that people here think they can just know what other people are thinking...and unfortunately the people guessing very rarely come from a positive pov. Common sense is far from common.
These posts are interesting. I like reading the different angles people have on whether anyone can obtain a rating of 10,000.
the crazy deal is the application of the grading software, you're the messenger.
It sounds like some of you are jealous of jerry's achievements. It takes a lot of skill and concentration to achieve a 4200 rating. It is not his fault if the average player is 1500+, mainly because there are not enough 2000+ players for him to compete with.
I've heard anecdotally that he won't accept challenges from at least one of them in particular....
Tsk, tsk, TheGrobe. Letting out Ozzie's secrets. Whatever happened to privacy on the internet?!
Well, considering I never said who it was and the fact that I heard it in a public forum where the high-rated player in question posted it himself I don't think it really qualifies as a secret.
Doesn't really qualify as reliable either. Even if it is true the reason behind refusing to play may have nothing to do with rating.
I think that instead of this rating system, that every time you win you get 1 point, same with loseing except you lose a point , REGARDLESS OF THE RATINGS YOU ALREADY HAVE! also a rating wipe will help.
No because you would be banned for cheating at about 3800. Nobody wins all their games. Good players will draw with you and a draw against a player rated 2800 when your rated 8000 would cost you 100's, if not a 1000 points.
Doesn't really qualify as reliable either. Even if it is true the reason behind refusing to play may have nothing to do with rating.
Where did I draw a conclusion about why he might have rejected the challenge?
Doesn't really qualify as reliable either. Even if it is true the reason behind refusing to play may have nothing to do with rating.
Suggo, you'd make a good defense attorney, but your mind isn't really absorbing the reality of the situation. I understand you probably just like to hedge your bets and play things safe, but sometimes it's not such a bad idea to exercise your inference skills a bit. That's just my opinion of course.
Doesn't really qualify as reliable either. Even if it is true the reason behind refusing to play may have nothing to do with rating.
Where did I draw a conclusion about why he might have rejected the challenge?
I never said you made any conclusion. I was just making a statement that if your evidence turned out to be correct, the reason behind it may have nothing to do with ratings.
Doesn't really qualify as reliable either. Even if it is true the reason behind refusing to play may have nothing to do with rating.
Suggo, you'd make a good defense attorney, but your mind isn't really absorbing the reality of the situation. I understand you probably just like to hedge your bets and play things safe, but sometimes it's not such a bad idea to exercise your inference skills a bit. That's just my opinion of course.
I don't mind drawing inferences Dexter, but pretty much everyone has run with inferences that make Chessnetwork to be a self centred egomaniac that borders on cheating to achieve his current rating...this seemed a little one sided and narrow minded to me. Unfortunately people generally like to try and run down others rather than find other, quite plausible, reasons for their actions and allow them the benefit of the doubt...or at least ask the guy his motives before we all crucify him.
What he is doing doesn't hurt anyone else, if it is a false rating does it really matter? it has no effect on anyone else. If he is that bored and wants to try and make 10000 why should that bother any of us...it obviously doesn't bother the people he plays, they line up to play him...and when they lose it doesn't even effect their rating
Doesn't really qualify as reliable either. Even if it is true the reason behind refusing to play may have nothing to do with rating.
Suggo, you'd make a good defense attorney, but your mind isn't really absorbing the reality of the situation. I understand you probably just like to hedge your bets and play things safe, but sometimes it's not such a bad idea to exercise your inference skills a bit. That's just my opinion of course.
I don't mind drawing inferences Dexter, but pretty much everyone has run with inferences that make Chessnetwork to be a self centred egomaniac that borders on cheating to achieve his current rating...this seemed a little one sided and narrow minded to me. Unfortunately people generally like to try and run down others rather than find other, quite plausible, reasons for their actions and allow them the benefit of the doubt...or at least ask the guy his motives before we all crucify him.
What he is doing doesn't hurt anyone else, if it is a false rating does it really matter? it has no effect on anyone else. If he is that bored and wants to try and make 10000 why should that bother any of us...it obviously doesn't bother the people he plays, they line up to play him...and when they lose it doesn't even effect their rating
I must say, I agree with that, it's a lot weird and a little sad, but that's true of many things.
idosheepallnight > No because you would be banned for cheating at about 3800.
Wrong, he's already at 4200 and not banned.
idosheepallnight > a draw against a player rated 2800 when your rated 8000 would cost you 100's, if not a 1000 points.
Wrong, the rating system has already been discussed in this thread and an active player doesn't stand to lose this many points even with a loss to a low rated player.
You cant gain points from people whom you are rated too much higher than. You would have to beat a person rated like 9599 when you are 9999 to get to 10000 which we could say is just about impossible.
You cant gain points from people whom you are rated too much higher than. You would have to beat a person rated like 9599 when you are 9999 to get to 10000 which we could say is just about impossible.
We are talking about Live Chess, where it is still possible to get a point from every win no matter who you play. It's something chess .com has to fix.
It sounds like some of you are jealous of jerry's achievements. It takes a lot of skill and concentration to achieve a 4200 rating. It is not his fault if the average player is 1500+, mainly because there are not enough 2000+ players for him to compete with.