chess.com is so unbalanced
Sort:
I'm an 800 elo, and I get put with people who are actually 800 elo, but as soon as I win 2 or more games, I get put with players who are playing 1000+ and I know this because the analysis says they play anywhere from 1000 elo to 1650 elo being the highest i've played against. When this happens, i lose like 5 matches in a row even when I played at 1100 elo Skill.
It's time to train up for the better!
It's actually good to players around 100 to 200 rating points above your rating range as a start (though 1650 may be tough to handle).
I hate losing a lot of games in a row. Sometimes I start winning games but then the system pairs me with higher rated players so I’ll start losing again. It’s unfair.
Only weak-minded ppl whine about this 🤣
Dec 9, 2023
0
#5
Kellyyeoh99 wrote:
Only weak-minded ppl whine about this 🤣
dont troll
TrueFrogMan wrote:
I'm an 800 elo, and I get put with people who are actually 800 elo, but as soon as I win 2 or more games, I get put with players who are playing 1000+ and I know this because the analysis says they play anywhere from 1000 elo to 1650 elo being the highest i've played against. When this happens, i lose like 5 matches in a row even when I played at 1100 elo Skill.
No it is not unbalanced. Players are matched by a real rating, not an imaginary computer assessed rating. And as such you are equally matched, and it is balanced. And what takes place during, and the outcome of any game(s) is coincidental. No one including a computer can predict how a player is going to play and what the computer generated result is going to be.
If by any chance you are thinking that the rating should be adjusted by the computer assessment, you are very wrong. The purpose of a rating is to provide an interesting and good game between two people where neither side has a real advantage such as a 1000 rated player against a 100 rated player.
Case in point, three of your games that I viewed. First number is what you started the game with followed by the computer assessment.
#1 803/750 okay not bad maybe it would work?
#2 812/1150 Now because you played great in the next game do you wish to be pitted against a much higher rated player?
#3 811/Not to embarrass you, lets just go with exceedingly low. (You message me if you wish to know the games)
You should be able to tell that basing anything off a computer assessment is clearly wrong.
bigD521 wrote:
TrueFrogMan wrote:
I'm an 800 elo, and I get put with people who are actually 800 elo, but as soon as I win 2 or more games, I get put with players who are playing 1000+ and I know this because the analysis says they play anywhere from 1000 elo to 1650 elo being the highest i've played against. When this happens, i lose like 5 matches in a row even when I played at 1100 elo Skill.
No it is not unbalanced. Players are matched by a real rating, not an imaginary computer assessed rating. And as such you are equally matched, and it is balanced. And what takes place during, and the outcome of any game(s) is coincidental. No one including a computer can predict how a player is going to play and what the computer generated result is going to be.
If by any chance you are thinking that the rating should be adjusted by the computer assessment, you are very wrong. The purpose of a rating is to provide an interesting and good game between two people where neither side has a real advantage such as a 1000 rated player against a 100 rated player.
Case in point, three of your games that I viewed. First number is what you started the game with followed by the computer assessment.
#1 803/750 okay not bad maybe it would work?
#2 812/1150 Now because you played great in the next game do you wish to be pitted against a much higher rated player?
#3 811/Not to embarrass you, lets just go with shockingly low. (You message me if you wish to know the games)
You should be able to tell that basing anything off a computer assessment is clearly wrong.
Dec 9, 2023
0
#8
You learn a lot more and improve your game stronger opposition. You get nothing from crushing weaker opponents. If you want to become a better player, challenge yourself with tough competition.
If you're just playing for fun, not taking the game seriously, why are you worried about winning, losing, and elo?
Dec 9, 2023
0
#10
By the way, the estimated elo you talk about in the game review is completely inaccurate every time. I believe Chess.com uses this as a sort of confidence boost, as it doesn't even work if you insert a PGN. The elo of the players must also be entered to spit out a result, usually always 200-300 points higher than the average of the player's ratings.
GMPatzer wrote:
You may choose a rating range for +- in the settings
This will do nothing. The guy isn't paired with 1100 and 1600 rated payers, he's just talking about that nonsensical new feature (estimated Elo based on 1 game).