Are lower rated players getting better? - Chess Forums - Page 4

Caffeineed · 2022-03-08T08:35:19-08:00

...or am I just getting worse? (I think I know the answer). I've lost 8 of my last 11 games against higher and lower rated players in my range, and two of the "wins" were abandonments (neither of which was because I was in a winning position). So I'm really about 1 for 11. In the

Martin_Stahl

Mar 9, 2022

0

#61

What I'm saying is, the site isn't going to change to multiple types of pairing algorithms. Simple as that. So if they liked the idea, they would need to change it for everyone.

My impression is that your style of pairing idea, now that you have a more detailed description, potentially could work, or something like it anyway, and probably would not impact pairing time significantly. Again, if you feel strongly about it, open a suggestion ticket.

sndeww

Mar 9, 2022

0

#62

LookUnderTheBoard wrote:

B1ZMARK wrote:

Why are you asking for oranges if they don’t have any?

Because I am tired of eating apples. It's not helping me improve in chess. This orange idea just means I wait longer for an opponent, and those that prefer apples can still eat apples.

Why are you so docile and submissive you won't suggest improvements?

I mean, in your analogy, you kept asking for oranges, when they already said they didn’t have them. You could have said, “is it possible for you guys to grow oranges”… which is a yes or no question.

sndeww

Mar 9, 2022

0

#63

I don’t suggest improvements because it’s not broken. And there are things they should (in my opinion) focus on more, such as a classical time control.

Martin_Stahl

Mar 9, 2022

0

#64

LookUnderTheBoard wrote:

Martin_Stahl wrote:

Had you read and comprehended my post, you'll see I wasn't replying to you

You quoted with my screenname and post I made. Who else were you addressing?

No, I didn't.

sndeww

Mar 9, 2022

0

#65

LookUnderTheBoard wrote:

B1ZMARK wrote:

LookUnderTheBoard wrote:

B1ZMARK wrote:

Why are you asking for oranges if they don’t have any?

Because I am tired of eating apples. It's not helping me improve in chess. This orange idea just means I wait longer for an opponent, and those that prefer apples can still eat apples.

Why are you so docile and submissive you won't suggest improvements?

I mean, in your analogy, you kept asking for oranges, when they already said they didn’t have them. You could have said, “is it possible for you guys to grow oranges”… which is a yes or no question.

Ok, I'll throw the same thing in your direction. If you think submitting suggestions is good, please suggest it to my team. Start a ticket.

I already have. But I’m not spending time writing many paragraphs on it.

Martin_Stahl

Mar 9, 2022

0

#66

LookUnderTheBoard wrote:

Martin_Stahl wrote:

LookUnderTheBoard wrote:

Martin_Stahl wrote:

Had you read and comprehended my post, you'll see I wasn't replying to you

You quoted with my screenname and post I made. Who else were you addressing?

No, I didn't.

You stated, "since it's the same live server process doing the pairings as far as I'm aware."

Me: I want oranges.

Martin_Stahl: You can select any apples you want in the apple orchard.

Me: But I want oranges.

Someone else: Hey, do I also get apples when I walk upside down into the orchard?

Martin_Stahl: Yes, it should be the same as if you walk on your feet.

I was specifically replying to the person I quoted, which was about how the app pairs, where I mentioned it is done on the server side, so should be the same, regardless of client

It had absolutely nothing to do with what you had posted.

Wits-end

Mar 9, 2022

0

#67

Yes, we have no bananas. We have no bananas today. If one is so highly intelligent and has it all figured out, why not just write the program and start your own chess website? It sounds like one feels it would be a massive improvement over CC.

sleepingpuppy

Mar 9, 2022

0

#68

LookUnderTheBoard wrote:

"I was specifically replying to the person I quoted, which was about how the app pairs, where I mentioned is done on the server side, so should be the same, regardless of client

It had absolutely nothing to do with what you had posted."

How is it different? Does the app give oranges? Grapes? By your words, you still get apples.

foobarred1 is basically asking if the apples here are different than the apples in another orchard

Martin said they're the same

Wits-end

Mar 9, 2022

0

#69

LookUnderTheBoard wrote:

"why not just write the program and start your own chess website?"

I have a different obsession regarding chess, but yes, programming is involved.

Well, then what are you waiting for?

InsertInterestingNameHere

Mar 9, 2022

0

#70

Oranges are objectively better than apples I understand you there

hoodoothere

Mar 9, 2022

0

#71

If you just want to learn or test an opening there is always the unrated game option. Also you can set a range of ratings you want to play by using the "custom game" option. You actually improve faster by playing players that are higher rated than you, so I set mine to -25/+400.

Martin_Stahl

Mar 9, 2022

0

#72

LookUnderTheBoard wrote:

"I was specifically replying to the person I quoted, which was about how the app pairs, where I mentioned is done on the server side, so should be the same, regardless of client

It had absolutely nothing to do with what you had posted."

How is it different? Does the app give oranges? Grapes? By your words, you still get apples.

Again, I was answering a specific question as it pertained to app vs web parings. It wasn't about anything you posted. I quoted the member I was answering, did not direct it towards you, and it wasn't in reply to or about anything you posted.

The only link to your discussion is it was an answer about pairing

Martin_Stahl

Mar 9, 2022

0

#73

LookUnderTheBoard wrote:

"Also you can set a range of ratings you want to play by using the "custom game" option."

Yea, I was surprised no one else chimed in with this yet. I was looking for a "sliding scale" formula so you don't have to keep changing your customized settings for the next one game.

....

It was refenced on the very first page of the topic:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/are-lower-rated-players-getting-better?page=1#comment-68020679

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/are-lower-rated-players-getting-better?page=1#comment-68020697

I even linked the help article on the second page:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/are-lower-rated-players-getting-better?page=2#comment-68021345

It was also discussed that you don't have to constantly adjust, because when your rating changes after the game, the ratings your +/- range covers also moves (the scale doesn't, but the values do). It's not as reactive as you want, but works to keep ratings within a certain range of your current rating, based on recent performance.

hoodoothere

Mar 9, 2022

0

#74

LookUnderTheBoard wrote:

"If you just want to learn or test an opening there is always the unrated game option."

For live?

"Also you can set a range of ratings you want to play by using the "custom game" option."

Yea, I was surprised no one else chimed in with this yet. I was looking for a "sliding scale" formula so you don't have to keep changing your customized settings for the next one game.

"You actually improve faster by playing players that are higher rated than you"

That is a half truth myth. A few years back, I heard in commentary that the Chinese would find won games by upcoming opponents. Then, they would research to see how they could have played those games better. Who is to guarantee that the opponent would always be higher rated?

If you play against a higher rated player and don't understand the positions you enter into, then it's useless. If we could simply play higher rated opponents, then why not play Stockfish all day?

My view is there are stages in development. You can be a master in one corner of a stage you are at, but that doesn't mean you know the other corners. Just look at d4/e4 as an opening. Maybe you are strong in e4. But can you play d4 as white against someone 50-100 points lower than you?

A lot of these guidelines by 2000+ titled chess coaches are best applied to 1800+ USCF/FIDE tournament players.

Until then, you need to learn your fundamentals.

There's a little green switch 3/4 down the page on live to toggle on/off rated to unrated. If you play players no more than 300 points above you you will learn and get better, maybe you should avoid GM's at your rating. In my experience over about 20 years of OTB play, if you play better players than you improvement comes, anyways it worked with me. Just trying to help not trying to argue.

KingPawnSmasher

Mar 9, 2022

0

#75

You may just be in denial with your lack of a proper study regimen. Also, focusing on the rating system just won’t do you any good. Focus on yourself and your game and your rating will increase.

You have played a lot of games at a pretty low level of chess, so you have ingrained some not so conducive chess patterns in your brain.

The good news, cleaning up your one move blunders, studying on basic chess fundamentals, and puzzles should give you a quick boost to your rating fast.

Play less games, study more.

#SmashEm

Caffeineed

Mar 9, 2022

0

#76

Wits-end wrote:

The OP joined CC March 7th. Played 21 games as of March 9th. 11 wins and 10 losses.

Look again. Been here over a year and 1500 games.

Martin_Stahl

Mar 9, 2022

0

#77

Caffeineed wrote:

Wits-end wrote:

The OP joined CC March 7th. Played 21 games as of March 9th. 11 wins and 10 losses.

Look again. Been here over a year and 1500 games.

I think @Wits-end thought @LookUnderTheBoard was the OP

InsertInterestingNameHere

Mar 9, 2022

0

#78

“It's You vs. Me with 26 letters of the alphabet.”

sounds like a boxing match hehe

orjanbre

Mar 9, 2022

0

#79

I think you should not consider the Chess.com rating especially in blitz without increment , as similar to a FIDE rating. The Chess.com rating is more about the skill set of the specific player pool then an actual measure of what the players FIDE rating might be . Atm the Blitz section without increment are so full of new players and very strong players starting at f.ex 1200 . A more correct measure of skills comparing to FIDE rating is found in the rapid and games with increment pool

Martin_Stahl

Mar 9, 2022

0

#80

LookUnderTheBoard wrote:

InsertInterestingNameHere wrote:

“It's You vs. Me with 26 letters of the alphabet.”

sounds like a boxing match hehe

Yea, the guy in power can't win by decent argument. I agree.

Since you can't remember what was already posted and unwilling to go back and reread, I don't think any argument could be offered to you that you would find up to your standards