Well I have had a tougher time with some 1300s than with some 1500s. The rating does not always reflect the real strength of a player.
1100 players are way better than 1200 ones
Sort:
1200 is also the rating they give to all new accounts. So you could be playing people who are really around 500 and just haven't gotten there yet.
Jan 31, 2017
0
#4
TRextastic wrote:
1200 is also the rating they give to all new accounts. So you could be playing people who are really around 500 and just haven't gotten there yet.
On the current site, that may not always be accurate. Starting ratings range from 800-1800
another thing to say.
1100 is pretty close to 1200, espacially in blitz. if you played a lot you could easily go from one number to the other.
I think 200,300 rating spread is where you really start to see differences.
so... for example. 1200 and 800 (assuming you haven't bumped into a playing that is deliberately sandbagging).
Jan 31, 2017
0
#6
Do you think it's possible this has become a kind of self fulfilling prophecy?
I think it's at least possible that a relatively short run of games where, by chance, you happened to play a few over rated 1200's and some under rated 1100's could have an effect on your confidence in future games when you play people in those rating ranges. Feeling more relaxed against 1200's could be making you better able to focus on the game, while the opposite is happening with 1100's. In other words, it's you playing better or worse depending on the opponent, rather than he opponent's real strength that explains this (at least partly).
I think it's at least possible that a relatively short run of games where, by chance, you happened to play a few over rated 1200's and some under rated 1100's could have an effect on your confidence in future games when you play people in those rating ranges. Feeling more relaxed against 1200's could be making you better able to focus on the game, while the opposite is happening with 1100's. In other words, it's you playing better or worse depending on the opponent, rather than he opponent's real strength that explains this (at least partly).
Martin_Stahl wrote:
TRextastic wrote:
1200 is also the rating they give to all new accounts. So you could be playing people who are really around 500 and just haven't gotten there yet.
On the current site, that may not always be accurate. Starting ratings range from 800-1800
I have actually noticed that. Is there any rhyme or reason to why the starting numbers vary?
Jan 31, 2017
0
#8
TRextastic wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote:
TRextastic wrote:
1200 is also the rating they give to all new accounts. So you could be playing people who are really around 500 and just haven't gotten there yet.
On the current site, that may not always be accurate. Starting ratings range from 800-1800
I have actually noticed that. Is there any rhyme or reason to why the starting numbers vary?
Isn't there some question in the account creation that asks your rating or to estimate your skill level (like beginner, intermediate, advanced)?
Jan 31, 2017
0
#9
Yeah, it is something along those lines and then it assigns the rating based on that answer. The default may even be beginner.
Stephenson2 wrote:
Wow M-S knows something about every thing just not the correct thing
What a generous compliment!
Jan 31, 2017
0
#11
Stephenson2 wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote:
TRextastic wrote:
1200 is also the rating they give to all new accounts. So you could be playing people who are really around 500 and just haven't gotten there yet.
On the current site, that may not always be accurate. Starting ratings range from 800-1800
I was unrated when I started then jumped to 1300 after three games and 1 week.
I played a person who started unrated then jumped to 1400 and then 1500 and then 1600 and then 1700 and then 1800 and finaly the game was over when he/she reached 1900. All this after 10 games spin that M-S
Spin what? That someone's rating increased? That you were unrated on your profile?
You were 1200 when you started, as can be seen from your archive since your first game was unrated. For a while the profile showed unrated until you had a certain number of rated games but I don't think it has been like that for a while, but members still had a rating.
Glicko and RD caused your rating to jump when you won your first rated game. If you do well enough when you start, your rating can get pretty high, quickly.
Mar 18, 2019
0
#12
TRextastic wrote:
1200 is also the rating they give to all new accounts. So you could be playing people who are really around 500 and just haven't gotten there yet.
I have to say my rating started at 672, but on the other hand, I already faced 600 or 800 pretty strong players.
600 have trouble beating 600. (Hit and miss)
1600 vs 1600
2600 vs 2600
That is why people stay in those rating. Improvement require considerable amount of experience and improvement of mistakes.
When I started playing I was 1200 and went down to the 800s(you can check my blitz rating history if you don't believe me). Ever since that time I worked my way up to 1200 which I just reached. The main difference between 1100 players and the low 800s or 900s is that while the lower ranking players weren't as good their moves were far more random. I'd constantly be doing calculations in my head thinking "is this guy an idiot or just secretly a genius making a tactical sacrifice?" compared to games against 1100s who make more predictable moves and I don't start thinking about some genius plan behind every blunder.
I am a 1750-ish player for classical in lichess but on chess.com its tough I am 1050 ish.. I dont know why
Feb 4, 2020
0
#16
srj143 je napisao:
Men I am 2100 rated player in lichess (classic chess) and here I am temporaly 1400... Don't know why is that
I am a 1750-ish player for classical in lichess but on chess.com its tough I am 1050 ish.. I dont know why
srj143 wrote:
I am a 1750-ish player for classical in lichess but on chess.com its tough I am 1050 ish.. I dont know why
neither chess.com nor lichess have very accurate ratings, but I do seem to hear that chess.com is a bit better. I find that Lichess ratings are usually inflated to around +200 points.
Jul 25, 2020
0
#18
TRextastic wrote:
1200 is also the rating they give to all new accounts. So you could be playing people who are really around 500 and just haven't gotten there yet.
Well if they are really 500 players, then the only way that could apply is if the opponent is exactly at 1200. When a 500 starts their account their rating will drop once they play a game, assuming they are 500 level in real life, so a 1207 can't be a 500 player with a new account.
Exactly!
thegreat_patzer wrote:
another thing to say.
1100 is pretty close to 1200, espacially in blitz. if you played a lot you could easily go from one number to the other.
I think 200,300 rating spread is where you really start to see differences.
so... for example. 1200 and 800 (assuming you haven't bumped into a playing that is deliberately sandbagging).
Yes, my rating has always been fluctuating by 100 or even 150 points. I have heard people in these forums say that their rating fluctuates by 200 points. If you play someone who is 1100 today, he may have been 1200 yesterday and he may will be 1200 tomorrow as well. He just had a bad run in which he lost 100 points.
I always have a hell of a time breaking through 1100 crowd but once I start playing 1200 players things get much easier. But anytime I meet a 1100 one they put up one hell of a fight. Much sharper and unpredictable. Quite a difference.