But sure, I've wondered about this... not only time of day, but day of the week.
time of year maybe to?possible in beginning of summer there are more kids that got a break from school and are looking for some games
True, that's worth thinking about too.
It is not so much ratings I am concerned about but wins. I prefer to win, rather than lose.
Nothing to do with self esteem.
So I simply recommend my method to maximise your natural time zone advantages.
Obviously, if I was already a naturally gifted brilliant chess player with endless time and resources to have coaching from a team of Russian GMs - to help me improve in an absolute sense - I wouldn't need to rely on a dubious workaround such as the Time Zone Method.
Weak mindset I am playing anyone if they are better that means I am learning. You win or you learn!
I prefer to win and learn. its more fun.
Win or lose, either way you learn
Ratings are actually amazingly accurate... in other words there's no difference between a 1600 from AU, IND, RUS, USA, etc.
My two cents.
Thanks Llama - I guess with every new theory, my method may need a bit of fine-tuning.
But as with any sport, say football's World Cup, Brazil for example would much prefer to play Australia or USA than France or Argentina. Even if, on paper, it is just 11 men against 11 men.
in central time the USA when is the rating gold rush?
Wouldn't you want to play tougher opponents to improve? The online rating points mean nothing in the grand scheme of things just a way to measure improvement.
Wouldn't you want to play tougher opponents to improve? The online rating points mean nothing in the grand scheme of things just a way to measure improvement.
Assuming players are easier during the time you play, you'll still get paired with tougher opponents after your rating goes up... it's the same thing just you'd be doing it at a different number.
On the ratings - "the pool" of the chess.com ratings is all of their users so I dont think this holds up. For your theory to work the US player would need to only play other US players and so have rating relative to only that pool. I play the vast majority of my game against other nationalities.
Wouldn't you want to play tougher opponents to improve? The online rating points mean nothing in the grand scheme of things just a way to measure improvement.
So, you're saying I should play tougher opponents so I can improve. Obviously, the tougher the opponent, the more I will improve. So let's say, for arguments sake, I take on 10 GrandMasters a day for 100 days.
Wouldn't they destroy me day after day, week after week, usually within 10 minutes? What improvement do I get out of that????
If you can give me a sensible answer, I'll eat my hat.
***Of course, alternatively, you can use the Time Zone Method to determine the best time to face tough opposition when they are at their primetime, so that you can supposedly improve.
For your theory to work the US player would need to only play other US players and so have rating relative to only that pool. I play the vast majority of my game against other nationalities.
As I outlined in my guide, I have discovered several sweet spots for chess players operating in the Australian Eastern Standard Time Zone (generally, from 8-10am and from 10am-4pm). For a good chunk of the day, our opponents will generally be from the USA (as well as Canada, Brazil, etc). That's the pool - opponents from different time zones, eg India, Middle East, Europe, Africa are, by and large, focussed on their beauty sleep.
Obviously there are outliers. Take Indians, for example. There are plenty of Indian early risers and late owls, and of course there are Indians playing from all around the world in all timezones.
So, in an important sense, you are correct. The AEST sweet spot - primarily up against the US pool of players - is not foolproof, ie it cannot guarantee that you will not face opposition from outside your pool.
Wouldn't you want to play tougher opponents to improve? The online rating points mean nothing in the grand scheme of things just a way to measure improvement.
Assuming players are easier during the time you play, you'll still get paired with tougher opponents after your rating goes up... it's the same thing just you'd be doing it at a different number.
Llama, I am honoured to see that you continue to give my hare-brained scheme some serious thought!
But logically speaking, why couldn't I enjoy my winning run based on the Time Zone Method and then after - or just before - the wins pair me up with tougher opposition slightly out of my league, simply switch to unrated?
Wouldn't you want to play tougher opponents to improve? The online rating points mean nothing in the grand scheme of things just a way to measure improvement.
Assuming players are easier during the time you play, you'll still get paired with tougher opponents after your rating goes up... it's the same thing just you'd be doing it at a different number.
Llama, I am honoured to see that you continue to give my hare-brained scheme some serious thought!
But logically speaking, why couldn't I enjoy my winning run based on the Time Zone Method and then after - or just before - the wins pair me up with tougher opposition slightly out of my league, simply switch to unrated?
Well, there are two different ideas being discussed here. Your idea is about maximizing your rating, and @practiceO's idea was about playing appropriately strong opponents.
What I pointed out is that even if you're maximizing your rating, you'll still eventually play opponents who are difficult for you. It's just that at 2pm the difficult opponents are rated X and and 8pm they're rated Y (picked random times for the sake of an example).
Ratings are actually amazingly accurate... in other words there's no difference between a 1600 from AU, IND, RUS, USA, etc.
My two cents.
It always baffles me why opponents with same ratings can play so differently. Sometime i feel i have no chance at all, opponents see way more than me. Sometimes they blunder left and right.
Out of curiosity i start looking at their stats and sometimes easy opponents have low puzzle rating.
Maybe they are overrated but how did they get such ratings at first place?
Ratings are actually amazingly accurate... in other words there's no difference between a 1600 from AU, IND, RUS, USA, etc.
My two cents.
It always baffles me why opponents with same ratings can play so differently. Sometime i feel i have no chance at all, opponents see way more than me. Sometimes they blunder left and right.
Out of curiosity i start looking at their stats and sometimes easy opponents have low puzzle rating.
Maybe they are overrated but how did they get such ratings at first place?
On average a rating is a rating... but there are so many factors it's hard to know what's going on with a single person.
For example, have you ever been ~200 points below your peak rating (if not you probably don't play rated games very often). Well of course after falling so low, all you have to do is play on a good day (focused, rested, etc) and get some of that rating back.
But how do you think your opponents experience this? They're looking at your current rating, but OMG you're playing as if you're 200 points stronger. How is that possible? So they check your tactics rating, and it's super low, but they don't know you don't even solve tactics on your account, one day you let your friend / brother / etc solve some tactics for fun so it's really low.
Well, you win, but your opponent doesn't give up for the day. He starts a new game... this time against someone rated 200 points higher and he beats them easily. What's going on? Well maybe that guy was on the way down from his peak.
On average a rating is a rating... but there are so many factors it's hard to know what's going on with a single person.
This contradicts the statement that ratings are amazingly accurate. 
And yes, sometimes my rating can fluctuate not 200 but even 500 points.
Well, people aren't robots. Having one bad day out of 100 doesn't make ratings inaccurate, but it will make individual cases confusing to players "why is my opponent so good/bad, ratings must not make sense."
If someone thinks ratings don't make sense, let's look at their graph. I bet it's pretty stable, and they're taking a few events out of context. 
im stuck with having to play after work between 5pm and 830 pm eastern time zone. and im usually pretty tierd. if i could just quit my job an study chess i could improve alot but my wife would kill me ahah
Thanks for your comment KMWS - this is the whole aim of my method. You can use it to maximise your wins without putting in the hours and days of study otherwise needed, or quitting your job haha....