chess.com ratings

It's probably just the normal ups and downs of Fortune. I see you were also in the mid-1600's as recently as July.

Sorry I'm not exactly clear on the lingo...EEG?

Electronicencephalogram(brain-scan trace similarity-joke!)

Correction-Electroencephalogram

Thanks...I guess. 

Any suggestions regarding focus?

A quick look through 200 games?

Suddenly I remember an episode where Data is listening to 6 (or so) classical pieces of music at the same time.

And these days we can just google it right up, lol

Of course.  Jeremy Silman says he could glance through 200 games in an hour with a book and chessboard. I use a computer screen.

Of course, there's a chance that I was offering a bit of bovine excrement as hyperbole and that I only looked at half a dozen games, or maybe none at all.

re: bold words, haha 

I suppose you could have downloaded the PGNs, and mouse-wheeled through them. I hadn't thought of that.

Still, as someone who sometimes goes to obsessive lengths, 200 seemed like a lot even to me.

Heh, sorry to be such a downer. I guess in context of the EEG comments earlier? I guess I should pay more attention. 

I've always been more boring .

For example I was working on this riveting post.

What do you think? Pretty good? Other than the famous Capa game I came up with the examples myself.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/endgame-help

I've done that with other player's games. A couple of friends and an occasional student who plays here. 200 is a lot, though.

I am a lowly pawn in the game of chess - but I simply do not understand why the computer geniuses can figure out programs that trounce the best chess players in the world, yet seem completely unable to figure out a rating system that actually works - i.e., rates players so games are competitive and interesting. Maybe it works better up there in the thin atmosphere you guys play in, but down here in the trenches where I play, the systems are abysmal failures! 200 point swings are regular occurrences. And probably 2/3rds of my games are no fun - either an opponent so far above me that I am never even in the game, or one that is so bad it's like stealing candy from a baby. Yes, I realize I have days where I play better or worse. But sorry, that does not begin to explain it. Sometimes I sink hundreds of points, and at each lower level, the players play better and better. I usually just turn it off, wait a day or two, and it returns to normal. Is it that hard to create a rating system that works at each end of the range of possible ratings???

There may be certain failings in the implementation of the rating system, but the system itself is just math. It's basically as perfect as you can hope to get it.

And looking at your rating, there are no 200 points swings, your rating stays quite level.

The nature of the game, and the nature of a somewhat lower rating means some games will be blowouts. For example when your opponent plays something they're familiar with and you've never seen before. Or when a tactic is missed early in the game and one player loses a lot of material.