You are firmly an "Intermediate" player not a beginner if you are over 1300 - this is in the top 10% of chess players in Rapid. True beginner probably ends at 400, and advanced Beginners ends at maybe 800-900 (average 50% chesscom rating is 620).
tbh if you wanna take chess seriously 1300 is still a beginner
... When I play over the board I rarely ever lose to players in 1400 range and am considered a 1500 rated player.
A 1500 rated player is expected to have a 64% against a 1400 rated player, not win all the games.
My peak OTB rating was 1648 and I'm currently floored at 1400. I still get wins against 1700+ played on occasion and lose to players lower than 1400. If you never lose to 1400's you should be well above 1700
... When I play over the board I rarely ever lose to players in 1400 range and am considered a 1500 rated player.
A 1500 rated player is expected to have a 64% against a 1400 rated player, not win all the games.
My peak OTB rating was 1648 and I'm currently floored at 1400. I still get wins against 1700+ played on occasion and lose to players lower than 1400. If you never lose to 1400's you should be well above 1700
I appreciate your insight, but I do not believe you are a 1900 on here and a 1400 in real life. As Iv said I have played 1400 rated players and they do not compare to 1200s on this site. Ratings for beginners on here are seriously deflated. I played a 1464 who played with 96 percent accuracy. Over the board I play 1400 that blunder pawns 24/7 and occasionally hang pieces to be snagged in one move. On here there’s no way a 1400 does that. If your a 1900 on here and got it the honest way your in the safe area of the website that wouldn’t understand what us lower levels go through. We constantly deal with the toxic stuff that I can’t speak of. We play other honest people who should be 200-300 elo higher but get crushed by people who do the unspeakable locked subject. It’s tough man, at the end of the day we all want to see progress but when you don’t see it because of an obvious flaw in the system it’s very frustrating. Your speaking to a fellow otb player here, I know what beginners and advanced beginners look like. This site has many 1200-1450 range that shouldn’t be there plan and simple.
I appreciate your insight, but I do not believe you are a 1900 on here and a 1400 in real life. As Iv said I have played 1400 rated players and they do not compare to 1200s on this site. Ratings for beginners on here are seriously deflated. I played a 1464 who played with 96 percent accuracy. Over the board I play 1400 that blunder pawns 24/7 and occasionally hang pieces to be snagged in one move. On here there’s no way a 1400 does that. If your a 1900 on here and got it the honest way your in the safe area of the website that wouldn’t understand what us lower levels go through. We constantly deal with the toxic stuff that I can’t speak of. We play other honest people who should be 200-300 elo higher but get crushed by people who do the unspeakable locked subject. It’s tough man, at the end of the day we all want to see progress but when you don’t see it because of an obvious flaw in the system it’s very frustrating. Your speaking to a fellow otb player here, I know what beginners and advanced beginners look like. This site has many 1200-1450 range that shouldn’t be there plan and simple.
I'm 1900 in Daily and that's probably a little over rated. Daily is usually 200-400 higher than OTB ratings. The vast majority of games played on site are played fairly and if you take an honest looks at the games themselves, the ones you lose, you'll find that in at least half of them, you were winning in many parts of the games. That's going to be true even against much lower rated players.
The ELO system is just a statistical model where your 'rating' describes a probability function of how likely you are to beat a given opponent. If you're 200 points higher than your opponent, you're one standard deviation higher than them, so you will score 84.1/100 against them (in a sample of 100 games). This implies the ELO rating is a linear and continuous function that represents a player's skill, so how could this be rigged?
... When I play over the board I rarely ever lose to players in 1400 range and am considered a 1500 rated player.
A 1500 rated player is expected to have a 64% against a 1400 rated player, not win all the games.
My peak OTB rating was 1648 and I'm currently floored at 1400. I still get wins against 1700+ played on occasion and lose to players lower than 1400. If you never lose to 1400's you should be well above 1700
I appreciate your insight, but I do not believe you are a 1900 on here and a 1400 in real life. As Iv said I have played 1400 rated players and they do not compare to 1200s on this site. Ratings for beginners on here are seriously deflated. I played a 1464 who played with 96 percent accuracy. Over the board I play 1400 that blunder pawns 24/7 and occasionally hang pieces to be snagged in one move. On here there’s no way a 1400 does that. If your a 1900 on here and got it the honest way your in the safe area of the website that wouldn’t understand what us lower levels go through. We constantly deal with the toxic stuff that I can’t speak of. We play other honest people who should be 200-300 elo higher but get crushed by people who do the unspeakable locked subject. It’s tough man, at the end of the day we all want to see progress but when you don’t see it because of an obvious flaw in the system it’s very frustrating. Your speaking to a fellow otb player here, I know what beginners and advanced beginners look like. This site has many 1200-1450 range that shouldn’t be there plan and simple.
I'm 1900 in Daily and that's probably a little over rated. Daily is usually 200-400 higher than OTB ratings. The vast majority of games played on site are played fairly and if you take an honest looks at the games themselves, the ones you lose, you'll find that in at least half of them, you were winning in many parts of the games. That's going to be true even against much lower rated players.
Mr stahl there is a flaw in the rating system and matchmaking on here. Respectfully I have to stand my ground here. It’s much easier to hide dishonesty at a lower level but when you play otb you know how rare it is to go from a losing treacherous position to all the sudden turning into Fischer, then once you get the lead miss mates in 2 and stall the end game 10 moves longer then it needs to be. lol. There’s much evidence that beginners aren’t rated fairly. There needs to be classes of players and those games need to be even distributed. 500-999 1000-1499. The elo points need to be distributed according to if you win and how well you play durning the win. Not based off the other person rating. If I beat someone in my class that played like a 1500-2000 then I should get the max amount of elo for that class that I’m in.
Mr stahl there is a flaw in the rating system and matchmaking on here. Respectfully I have to stand my ground here. It’s much easier to hide dishonesty at a lower level but when you play otb you know how rare it is to go from a losing treacherous position to all the sudden turning into Fischer, then once you get the lead miss mates in 2 and stall the end game 10 moves longer then it needs to be. lol. There’s much evidence that beginners aren’t rated fairly. There needs to be classes of players and those games need to be even distributed. 500-999 1000-1499. The elo points need to be distributed according to if you win and how well you play durning the win. Not based off the other person rating. If I beat someone in my class that played like a 1500-2000 then I should get the max amount of elo for that class that I’m in.
You can set your rating ranges in your seeks and limit the bands, though the range must always include your current rating.
That said, I have played enough OTB games, both casually and in tournaments, as well as online to know that as a 1400-1700 strength player, that I often evaluate positions incorrectly and often have an inaccurate feel for if I'm winning or losing. I also have games against much lower rated players that felt like they were against higher rated ones (OTB, long time controls).
If you're basing your estimate of how well your opponent played on your post game rating estimates, those are not even close to accurate and shouldn't be used for any kind of rating changes.
Mr stahl there is a flaw in the rating system and matchmaking on here. Respectfully I have to stand my ground here. It’s much easier to hide dishonesty at a lower level but when you play otb you know how rare it is to go from a losing treacherous position to all the sudden turning into Fischer, then once you get the lead miss mates in 2 and stall the end game 10 moves longer then it needs to be. lol. There’s much evidence that beginners aren’t rated fairly. There needs to be classes of players and those games need to be even distributed. 500-999 1000-1499. The elo points need to be distributed according to if you win and how well you play durning the win. Not based off the other person rating. If I beat someone in my class that played like a 1500-2000 then I should get the max amount of elo for that class that I’m in.
You can set your rating ranges in your seeks and limit the bands, though the range must always include your current rating.
That said, I have played enough OTB games, both casually and in tournaments, as well as online to know that as a 1400-1700 strength player, that I often evaluate positions incorrectly and often have an inaccurate feel for if I'm winning or losing. I also have games against much lower rated players that felt like they were against higher rated ones (OTB, long time controls).
If you're basing your estimate of how well your opponent played on your post game rating estimates, those are not even close to accurate and shouldn't be used for any kind of rating changes.
Why does chess.com do these post game ratings? If they are highly inaccurate and you are admitting that then why have it? It’s deceptive
Why does chess.com do these post game ratings? If they are highly inaccurate and you are admitting that then why have it? It’s deceptive
I don't know anything about the actual project for estimated ratings and my statements are based as a member that knows the basics on how it works. (not any kind of official stance)
It's an interesting idea for a feature but based on experience, it's not generally accurate. The code uses the player ratings, in addition to the associated game accuracies, to generate the estimates. If you take a game and change the player ratings, it will give a different set of estimates.
The trick is hanging out with chess players who are actually good over the board and have official ratings. They will tell you what this site is full of.
I am an advanced beginner level chess player, knowing people who reached higher levels I must say, chess.com is under inflated at this level. It maybe true that once you get to 2000 it’s inflated, but the lower levels are not accurate at all. 1200-1400 has some of the best players I have ever played against in my life. The strength of there opening knowledge, middle game no where resembles a 1200-1400 rated player. It’s absolutely insane to me how chess.com does address as being stuck at these levels is frustrating and we all know what is causing the deflation at the lower levels. But I can’t say in fear of being locked.
Actually 2000 is not inflated lower levels is deflated and it's not that it's inaccurate it's also not cheating it's also the fact that there's like 100 times more beginners than experts
@DutchDevisser
YESS, I sometimes play at a 1900 level but my rating is 700 it's dumb, so I'm put against the best 700's on the website, it's pointless and I'm stuck...