Forums

are ratings being rigged at chess.com to farm engagement.

Sort:
Antonin1957

I get the impression that many people who create thread after thread about losing streaks don't really enjoy chess that much. For some reason they are just hung up on the number connected to their fake name. Study more, play more, study more. But so few people want to be told that real improvement requires dedication and hard work. Improvement does not just come automatically when you play a certain number of games.

nikschess9

People just cant answer the reason why it is predictable that someone people with higher peak rating are harder to beat than people with lower peak rating but similar live rating. They instead say, "people should improve,its hard work,dedication etc". Complete BS. If everyone can improve , then you wouldnt have the distribution that you have. This applies to many things in life. nakamura is not losing to magnus because he isnt working harder enough. No, everyone hits their own plateau . What matters is, are they getting what they worked hard for. That is it, if you can beat people with peak rating over 2000, but because of algorithm, you keep having to play them repeatedly, you are never going to get to your peak rating because you are facing that level of competition at a lower live rating , that is not fair.

blueemu
nikschess9 wrote:

People just cant answer the reason why it is predictable that someone people with higher peak rating are harder to beat than people with lower peak rating but similar live rating.

A six year old child could answer it.

Live ratings are NOT handed down by God. They fluctuate up and down, as people have good and bad days... often enough, they change by more than a hundred points.

Let's imagine two players... Red and Blue. Red is a better player on average, but rather erratic. His rating swings up and down a lot but is usually higher than Blue's rating.

Blue is a worse player on average, but is more steady and his rating varies less day-to-day.

You play them both at the point marked with the Black line.

Who is more likely to beat you? Obviously, THE BETTER PLAYER is more likely to beat you, whether or not his rating is currently recovering from a bad patch.

Honestly, you conspiracy theorists will prefer to believe any bizarre theory rather than admit "my rating sucks because I'm doing it wrong", or "I lose games because I don't pay attention".

nikschess9

so , now care to tell why better player loses 500 pts?. 500 point tilt?

landloch

My peak rating in Rapid is 1706. I definitely do not play at that level in general, I got on a hot streak (good tilt, if you will). About two months later my rating was down to 1430, not because The Algorithm was making me play underrated people and/or bots, but because I played a lot of games when I was tired and then keep playing to get back lost points ... classic tilt. It's not that my opponents were playing amazing chess, it's that I was playing bad chess.

Also, you keep talking about 500 point differences between peak and current rating. How often have you actually seen this? Can you point us to some profiles where this is the case?

Wits-end
landloch wrote:

My peak rating in Rapid is 1706. I definitely do not play at that level in general, I got on a hot streak (good tilt, if you will). About two months later my rating was down to 1430, not because The Algorithm was making me play underrated people and/or bots, but because I played a lot of games when I was tired and then keep playing to get back lost points ... classic tilt. It's not that my opponents were playing amazing chess, it's that I was playing bad chess.

Also, you keep talking about 500 point differences between peak and current rating. How often have you actually seen this? Can you point us to some profiles where this is the case?

Thank goodness and all things righteous and true! Finally, an honest appraisal of how one's rating (as if that is the all important aspect of chess) can occasionally...wait for it... increase by leaps. Kudos my friend. I was just about to run out of tears and tissues. 😉

nikschess9

freakizz is one example, was in 1600s when i faced but has peak rating over 2100 ,another one had a peak rating of 2284 something but was in 1700s. Dont remember the name.

MaetsNori
nikschess9 wrote:

so , now care to tell why better player loses 500 pts?. 500 point tilt?

Looking at your game history, you dropped down to the 1600s (your lowest point, from what I can see) on April 20th.

On that day you played *over 250* bullet games.

That's well over 10 hours of bullet. In one day.

That amount of continuous play can certainly lead to mental exhaustion, tilt, etc ...

nikschess9

well, it doesnt matter now, i got my trifecta of 2000 in rapid, blitz and bullet. Each was difficult, but bullet, i got 1990 last yr but left chess, now getting back in past month or 2, it was very very very difficult in my experience. Because i was playing those with higher peaks at low live rating, and in bullet, you dont get time to reflect and change. You are dependent on your intuition far more than in other games. And i found it unfair when faced with people whose higher peaks was well above 2200 but had live rating of 1700 or 2100 and live rating in 1600s. Not to mention internet speed was very slow for some reason.

Now it is done. good bye. wish you all well. its your problem now.

David

Given that so much of your self esteem seems to be tied up with your Chess ratings, I suspect that it will continue to be your problem on an ongoing basis...

nikschess9

The problem now is that, i cant enjoy more chess as that might lower my acquired ratings. I did it, but now that i did it, it doesnt seem the challenge i thought it was. it makes you think you can go further. But in anycase, mission accomplished.

BigChessplayer665

Just enjoy the game I hit the trifecta minus bullet because I hate it about a year ago lol and since I haven't realy increased elo since then I'm like a 2500 on a 2000 elo level so it feels complete garbage to me lol

QathetMike

I wonder if Art Bell realized his 'night time conspiracy' radio show was going to have so much effect on society.

A light, goofy show to listen to while falling asleep, has morphed some segments of society into wack jobs.

magipi
QathetMike wrote:

I wonder if Art Bell realized his 'night time conspiracy' radio show was going to have so much effect on society.

A light, goofy show to listen to while falling asleep, has morphed some segments of society into wack jobs.

Who is Art Bell?

99% of society have never even heard the name.

blueemu
QathetMike wrote:

A light, goofy show to listen to while falling asleep, has morphed some segments of society into wack jobs.

Some segments of society were already whack jobs.