My score usually chunters along at 1350 - 1450- or so and will do so for a good number of games agoinst players with similar score to me. Every now and again I find myself losing badly to 1100 - 1200 players playing out of their skins and Im playing at my usual , certainly no worse. I sometimes feel that chess.com has been moving the goalposts , changing algorithems , or whatever.. what da heck is going on, I dont think my game is worse than usual. Anyone find this ?
My score usually chunters along at 1350 - 1450- or so and will do so for a good number of games agoinst players with similar score to me. Every now and again I find myself losing badly to 1100 - 1200 players playing out of their skins and Im playing at my usual , certainly no worse. I sometimes feel that chess.com has been moving the goalposts , changing algorithems , or whatever.. what da heck is going on, I dont think my game is worse than usual. Anyone find this ?
Think with simple logic,
1. Your previous 1300 rating was bogus (statistical fluke and is now adjusted to 1200) or
2. Your recent 1100 opponents were underrated ( you adjusted their rating and they are now 1200 I guess) lol.
Considering the number of games Ive played I dont think my score was bogus... appreciate your humour though..
Did the rating system change at all? I don’t think I’ve dropped off that bad but my ratings from a while back are down ~2/300 points??
Oh, you are so right, DaddyJama.. my score is now 1270 - 1300.. down from 1450 ish. Chess.com have done something to the system and told no one. My game has certainly not deteriorated so what da heck is going on
Did the rating system change at all? I don’t think I’ve dropped off that bad but my ratings from a while back are down ~2/300 points??
Well, imagine, rating points are like pool money in Casino. Some players must lose rating points while some players are gaining points. Other possibility is the statistical odd, you can win/ lose 20 games straight.
Sharing( points) is caring!! Agreed?. 🤔
Is it fair? Lost on time, I was white...Blitz s#!t!!!
Is it fair? Lost on time, I was white...Blitz s#!t!!!
You need to aware of time management in speed chess. Bad moves are always better than losing on time. Your position is not clear straight forward win with premove in 10 secs. You will need minimally 20-30 moves to win against equally rated opponent.
That being said, you should start playing bullet speed 1 move/s since 30 secs ago.
I think it's just putting your rating and what number you were on chess.com
Is it fair? Lost on time, I was white...Blitz s#!t!!!
Sometimes its better to spend the time needed to find someting good, and the price might be losing on time. I think its worth it. Grows you stronger.
Freedom and Love !! More in life there is nothing !!! Join the tournament and arrange your Revolution!!!!
https://www.chess.com/tournament/the-great-october-revolution
Did the rating system change at all? I don’t think I’ve dropped off that bad but my ratings from a while back are down ~2/300 points??
Well, imagine, rating points are like pool money in Casino. Some players must lose rating points while some players are gaining points. Other possibility is the statistical odd, you can win/ lose 20 games straight.
Sharing( points) is caring!! Agreed?. 🤔
the more the merrier, yes but it doesnt seem that all the new people would be better right away than all the other people that are already on there. Sharing points make sense in a zero sum game. WHen you add more peopel i'd think that the skill demographic of the people dont change alot though??
thoughts?
Oh, you are so right, DaddyJama.. my score is now 1270 - 1300.. down from 1450 ish. Chess.com have done something to the system and told no one. My game has certainly not deteriorated so what da heck is going on
still dont seem to have an answer?? maybe i'lll start a diff thread?
The sands of time take us all. At least in chess, we may know how much time we have: and that is all we have to play the game. I don't play blitz a lot yet, but it will be forthcoming. Try playing some longer time games for awhile, then less time as you feel comfortable with it.
I do not know the openings, so that takes too much of my time. That means I should learn the openings.
Are the higher chess.com tactics under rated? I've jumped from a pretty much static 1650 rating for the past few months to 1900+.
I don't I've gotten that much better at tactics, to be honest it seems a lot of the higher rated ones are surprisingly over rated. There was a 2175 rating that was quite simple (and the comments said similar). https://www.chess.com/tactics/163574
Seems like there's theres a steady set of difficult questions around 1600 and then not much of a jump/decrease in difficulty after that?
Are the higher chess.com tactics under rated? I've jumped from a pretty much static 1650 rating for the past few months to 1900+.
I don't I've gotten that much better at tactics, to be honest it seems a lot of the higher rated ones are surprisingly over rated. There was a 2175 rating that was quite simple (and the comments said similar). https://www.chess.com/tactics/163574
Seems like there's theres a steady set of difficult questions around 1600 and then not much of a jump/decrease in difficulty after that?
My experience has been that there is a big spread of what I personally find difficult in terms of puzzle rating (I get puzzles I cant solve at 1700 but get ones that are easy at 2450. I'm not that surprised as there will be some variation in what tactical motifs I am better at but I think the answer is the number isn't supposed to represent how HARD a puzzle is, but how well a person of that rating would perform.
Ratings are more that just a result of tactical skill. A strong strategic player who has prepared a few lines will often beat a strong tactical player. The end result is that stronger players may not get certain puzzles and then the puzzles become ranked higher.
The other side of it is the numbers are just the performance stats from the site. I' consider myself about at a 1450 player, but my tactics rating is much higher. I don't think this means my tactics are as good as an average player of that higher elo .
I think that's a fair assessment too, I was just finding it interesting that I was stuck around 1650 for so long and there has been a jump to 1950 now without that much of an issue. I don't think my play is 300 points better than it was before.
It would be interesting to see what your true rating was if you played some more games!
...why was this pinned?