Chess.com Ratings are a JOKE - Chess Forums - Page 6

AlexiZalman

Jun 29, 2022

0

#101

nMsALpg wrote:

....

This happens all the time. People are always saying completely stupid and untrue things. Whether they do it on purpose, I don't know, but without a game history there's 0% chance I believe you.

I can assure you I have giving an honest opinion of my very subjective experience. Of course, any deductions derived from that experience could be entirely wrong and a single example is unlikely to be proof anything. However, as an individual I can but act on my own experience. I never intent to play humans on this account.

I am not asking anyone to believe me, I am not a prophet!

RivenIsMyName

Jun 29, 2022

0

#102

TheBullyMaguire wrote:

I am 1100 rating.
Or so I thought…
After making a different account than my main one, 15 matches later, I am 1700 rating.

What the hell?

Let me explain what is going on here, and why the rating system is severely flawed, and also why you may be better than you think.

Let’s say you start an account.

You are 800 rating.

You play until you are around 1100-1200. Perhaps at this rating most people either stop playing or completely commit to chess.

At this point you stop improving for some months, or so it would seem. Although you play every day, you just can’t seem to get higher in the rankings.

What gives?

Meanwhile, thousands of other little Timmy’s are doing the exact same thing.

Let’s say all the people in that rating are improving in skill at the same rate you are. That means no matter how hard you try, you will never get out.

You can be rated 2000 and still be in 1200. Exaggeration? Perhaps. But consider if most 1200’s are actually 300-400 points higher than their actual rating, that means it would take at least 100-200 rating of skill (generalities I know) to consistently beat opponents in that skill bracket to get out.

No one seems to get this. No one seems to care. But I do. Because most people will quit around 1200 because they don’t see their dumb rating improving.

In reality, you’re probably much better than you realize.

"In reality, you’re probably much better than you realize. " - TheBullyMaguire

but im not

autumncurtis

Jun 29, 2022

0

#103

On a very rare occasion a 1200 player might beat a 2100 player in fide too. I'd argue your rating is different each game 🤷‍♀️

Jimemy

Jun 29, 2022

0

#104

autumncurtis skrev:

On a very rare occasion a 1200 player might beat a 2100 player in fide too. I'd argue your rating is different each game 🤷‍♀️

I mean your rating is different each game. Since it changes after each game 😊

blueemu

Jun 29, 2022

0

#105

- "Chess.com ratings are a joke!"

True... some of them are funnier than others, of course.

sndeww

Jun 29, 2022

0

#106

Jimemy wrote:

autumncurtis skrev:

On a very rare occasion a 1200 player might beat a 2100 player in fide too. I'd argue your rating is different each game 🤷‍♀️

I mean your rating is different each game. Since it changes after each game 😊

win +8 / draw 0 / loss -8

game drawn by agreement (+0)

Jimemy

Jun 29, 2022

0

#107

B1ZMARK skrev:

Jimemy wrote:

autumncurtis skrev:

On a very rare occasion a 1200 player might beat a 2100 player in fide too. I'd argue your rating is different each game 🤷‍♀️

I mean your rating is different each game. Since it changes after each game 😊

win +8 / draw 0 / loss -8

game drawn by agreement (+0)

Oh yeah I missed that part. I stand corrected.

sndeww

Jun 29, 2022

0

#108

Jimemy wrote:

B1ZMARK skrev:

Jimemy wrote:

autumncurtis skrev:

On a very rare occasion a 1200 player might beat a 2100 player in fide too. I'd argue your rating is different each game 🤷‍♀️

I mean your rating is different each game. Since it changes after each game 😊

win +8 / draw 0 / loss -8

game drawn by agreement (+0)

Oh yeah I missed that part. I stand corrected.

It's ok if you sit, I don't mind =)

Jimemy

Jun 29, 2022

0

#109

CooloutAC skrev:

nMsALpg wrote:

CooloutAC wrote:

nMsALpg wrote:

CooloutAC wrote:

nMsALpg wrote:

AlexiZalman wrote:

CooloutAC wrote:

...

On Lichess the average is fixed to 1500 which is the rating everyone starts at. Chess.com is completely different though. I was going to quit chess when stuck at rating 100 for a week here, and after buying a beginner book and learning and practicing i hit a wall at 400. My opponents playing skills were night and day and it did not feel right. I decided to make an account on lichess and it was a very different experience. So I agree with what you are saying and have come to the same conclusion.

As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, I am pretty sure there is something very fishy about the gameplay at sub-1000 levels on chess.com, which more talented players are unlikely to notice. I didn't really notice this till I eventually started played in tournaments where the rating ranges were much wider, say +/-400, than the individual auto-selection. Everything seemed inverted, my gameplay was much better against players much higher rated and much worst against those much lower. After playing 100s of games using the auto-selection method my rating was moreorless static. I came to the conclusion that the only way to really increase my rating was to target much higher rated players - not an easy thing to consistently do on CCC. The whole experience was counter-intuitive to real world chess progress., and totally undermined the ELO system.

You have zero games on this account.

I mean, it's a nice story, but you have no idea how often someone will say something like...

... well for example, a few days ago some noob was complaining about how he always loses as white against the scandinavian after 1.e4 d5... so I looked in his game history and saw that in his last 100 games he had that position 6 times AND ONLY LOST ONCE.

This happens all the time. People are always saying completely stupid and untrue things. Whether they do it on purpose, I don't know, but without a game history there's 0% chance I believe you.

well if you look at my insights, as I explained you will see I definitely hit a wall at 400-500 section. You can see where i was about to quit chess in the 100-200 categorty, Thats when I bought a book which helped. Then when I hit the 400 rating wall I started playing on lichess for more competitive matches. And that feeling has never changed on lichess.

I even made threads complaining about how it didn't feel right at that level at the time, so when I got gifted the diamond yesterday it was first thing I checked. I got my blitz all the way up to 800, then immediately crashed and burned back to 600 where i have been struggling. But alot of that has to do with the fact I just bought an e-board and have been playing most 30 min matches now. SO its hard for me to adjust back and forth.

I'm guessing 800 is the next wall though. And again I don't think it is a coincidence.

I imagine the only wall in lichess is the 1500 wall. But to me that is a good wall, because that is kind of like going from novice to intermediate. Its when you go from average, to above average, and its by design.

I don't know man, maybe there are some sort of walls...

But I will say it's normal for progress to be 2 steps forwards and one step back. I don't think it's unnatural to reach a new peak, then fall back down.

The problem is when those peaks are because people are purposely underrated. It ruins the credibility of the whole system.

The wall placed in Lichess is only a single artificial wall and it is right at the median and average. That feels more sporting and competitive.

Oh I see, you're saying there are people who start at 800, and so people from, IDK, 700-900 run into them, lose games, and become underrated, and so they in turn play people like you and keep you down.

I guess something like that might happen... I don't think it'd be as big of a wall as you're making it out to be... but I can see how there could be an argument there. I still think you'd be facing people who are nearly correctly rated... you know, like only 10 points down or something from that 1 game they lost unfairly.

Its not just about holding me down. Its just not as consistently competitive. SO it could be players who are overrated as well as underrated. Its just the feeling of how sporting the match is that is better on lichess. And when trying to figure out why this is the conclusion i come to.

So ya. huge walls at 400 and 800 at my low rating on chess.com. On lichess I never had the feeling of hitting an artificial wall where players become inconsistent, but I assume there is one at 1500. Again i assume this because of how the rating systems are designed on each site.

But like I said occasionally on lichess I will run into players who play way under or above their ratings, but when that happens they always have a question mark next to their name indicating they are in evaluation period. So that lets me know nothing improper is happening.

Maybe once you start climbing your mind will change. Looking forward to hear your thougts once you get to 1500 on chess.com/1800 Lichess

sndeww

Jun 29, 2022

0

#110

I've ran through alts before on lichess before I settled on a username I liked (I don't like it but I think it's funny =) )

From my own experiences, it took longer. I would go from 1500 to 2000 real quick, but then it would be like trudging through mud to get any higher.

Wheras on chess.com? I can just make an account at 2000, win two games, boom. I'm at my rating. It may go a bit higher, or a bit lower, but it doesn't feel like I'm forced to play games just to be matched with people my own strength.

Jimemy

Jun 29, 2022

0

#111

I remmeber hating to play at Lichess at 1500 because every other game was versus a new account. On chess.com I had to work to get to 1000+ and once there it didnt feel like I faced as many new accounts as with 1500 on Lichess

sndeww

Jun 29, 2022

0

#112

CooloutAC wrote:

B1ZMARK wrote:

I've ran through alts before on lichess before I settled on a username I liked (I don't like it but I think it's funny =) )

From my own experiences, it took longer. I would go from 1500 to 2000 real quick, but then it would be like trudging through mud to get any higher.

Wheras on chess.com? I can just make an account at 2000, win two games, boom. I'm at my rating. It may go a bit higher, or a bit lower, but it doesn't feel like I'm forced to play games just to be matched with people my own strength.

that's a lie lmao... Link that account. Because I can link you Kowarenai's. Took him around 200 games to go from 1400 to 2200. And at one point he only had 4 losses in 100 games. For me I didn't need to see his account though. I guess i have a good sport sense, because from my own experience something like that happening was obvious. It was too much of a coincidence that I got stuck at rating 400 like I hit a brick wall.

now granted lower rated players will of course be very inconsistent. But when I made my account on lichess before literally quitting chess, it was a total different experience.

On lichess everyone starts at 1500 and people drastically go up and down. I mean you might lose a game and lose -300 points or something ridiculous like that. So there you really get evaluated quickly.

My blindfold rapid account is @iceflies (I haven't been on it in a while, asked chess.com for permission)

My current lichess account is here =)

Jimemy

Jun 29, 2022

0

#113

CooloutAC skrev:

Jimemy wrote:

I remmeber hating to play at Lichess at 1500 because every other game was versus a new account. On chess.com I had to work to get to 1000+ and once there it didnt feel like I faced as many new accounts as with 1500 on Lichess

What you are saying makes no logical sense and, no offense, but you dont' really seem like a type of guy with any sports sense to even sense anything is off. But if true, then you would really hate playing on chess.com at 400, at 800, at 1200, 1400, and 1800.

The fact there is a wall at lichess at the average, and also the median, rating which is the same. Means it is more legit and sporting. More fair and competitive.

That brings up another good point though, there is something to be said for the fact the average rating on chess.com is 800, which is nowhere near the median. I'm terrible at math so i'm not explaining this right. But on lichess, the top of the graph where the most players are rated is the same as the average, and is the middle rating on the site. Its all the same number and this probably keeps things fair and competitive.

On chess.com the average is 800, most people are like 600-700, even though 1500 is the middle rating. That might be a symptom and sign there is something wrong with the system.

And I still say its because chess.com chose to cater to those at the top, sacrificing the quality of matches for the average player, which is the mistake of most gaming sites in general for the past 30 years.

I didnt feel the same way on chess.com

The thing is everyone starts at 1500 on Lichess so it way bigger odds of you playing versus a new player at 1500 on Lichess then when you are 1000 on chess.com. I started at 400 on chess.com. I have never feelt any wall. I mean at 1500 it was really hard to advance from there. And I kinda got a bit stuck on 1300 to. But that is more because of my skill and learning then anything else. Because the game got harder the higher I manage to climb.

Is it not possible that you are stuck at your current rating because of your knowledge and skill rather then, cheaters, faulty ratingsystem, speedrunners etc? It seems to me that you keep attacking other things when in reality you at least as it seems to me are just simply stuck because of your own skill and knowledge.

And if someone disagree with you tell them it is because of there ego and superiority complex. Which I think is a very unfriendly way of having a conversation.

fireonpizza

Jun 29, 2022

0

#114

TheBullyMaguire wrote:

NMRhino wrote:

That’s not true at all. If your a 1700 then you should be winning 98% of the time against 1000 rated players so if your stuck in that rating range then you shouldn’t because you’d be winning all of the games.

I am currently winning 50% of games against 1600-1700 rated players. Can beat the 1600 chess bot every other round. And do 2100 rated puzzles.

Then I go to my 1200 rated main, and win the same amount of the time, but sometimes even getting crushed. And even worse, sometimes going on lose streaks.

People believe in this rating system, but I don’t. To me, it’s completely irrelevant and actually quite superficial.

bruh first:

Its Agaisnt Chess.com Rule to have an alt accont

2. 2100 puzzle rating is I think a bit to low since my puzzle rating is 2700 (I used to be 3000)

3. If you have your alt account is new, you always get like 65 rating after winning a game.

sndeww

Jun 29, 2022

0

#115

When I was rated 1800 in 10min blitz (it didn't used to be rapid back then) my puzzles were 2600

2100 puzzle for an 1100 is quite good

AlexiZalman

Jun 29, 2022

0

#116

Another thought!

Suppose you are a 1500+ player and very conscious of rating - who isn't? - and you lose a few games in a row, would it not be tempting to switch over to an ALT account - or perhaps RoadKill account would be more accurate - and relax by squashing hedgehogs? Point being that such RoadKill accounts - if they exist - are far more likely to be created by much higher level players than the poor hedgehogs.

LiChess has a Causal Mode where you can play without any effect on your rating. Could this be why the ratings feel sounder to hedgehogs!?

If such a mode existed on Chess.com there would be less temptation to create RoadKill accounts.

As far as I am aware all you need is a unique e-mail address to create an account and my e-mail provider offers a maximum of 100 for no additional cost (although how you are supposed to manage that many is a mystery).

sndeww

Jun 29, 2022

0

#117

You do know that you can play unrated?

AlexiZalman

Jun 29, 2022

0

#118

Eck, well that kills that idea!

TrueSteppa

Jun 29, 2022

0

#119

I hear u THE BULLYMaguire I'm the guy this site REFUSE DO DEAL WITH ME...IVE PLAYED MANY CHEATERS AFTER CHEATERS and time and time This they don't EVEN RESPOND PROPERLY ..u may have renewed a account and reach Above 2200 on your previous account but your forgetting this site MAPS and STEALS ALGORITHMS..DATABASE PURPOSES ....on your road back climbing to the top you may find yourself dealing with 12/13/14/1500 rated players using engines way beyond your capacity... especially when it's bullet or quick blitz ...I personally took the time to watch these GM PLAY so one thing I can say GOOD LUCK AND KEEP FIGHTING..AND DONT WORRY ABOUT THE PROGRESS .. REMEMBER THE LESSONS CHESS.COM AND PROVIDE AND THE HECK WITH THE RATINGS (EVERY ENGINE IS BOUND BY THE RULES CHESS .COM GIVES AND PROVIDES BRO .TRUST eventually you may end up beating a few engine user with the SAME UNDERSTANDINGS ..if there was a AWARD FOR REPORTING PLAYERS GUESS WHAT ...IT STILL COULDN'T FIX YOUR RATING ,ONLY YOUR ALGORITHM IS GOING TO PLUG U IN.... lol and i have beaten a few NM /Cm/WCM on here using these lessons...This sit ENCOURAGED ME TO GO SIGN UP FOR USCF.AND FIDE THIS IS MY THIRD ACCOUNT SINCE 20056

Jimemy

Jun 30, 2022

0

#120

CooloutAC skrev:

Jimemy wrote:

And if someone disagree with you tell them it is because of there ego and superiority complex. Which I think is a very unfriendly way of having a conversation.

It is your ego and superiority complex that has you focused on my rating which does NOT change the merits of my argument.

The irony. Lol why am I even bothering.