Very difficult to believe that someone rated 900 on chess.com could beat "players floating around master elo on another site". Sorry, but that's not true
Elo Heck ~ Brought to you by: vortexxdr
Sort:
Steven-ODonoghue wrote:
Very difficult to believe that someone rated 900 on chess.com could beat "players floating around master elo on another site". Sorry, but that's not true
I absolutely understand your skepticism.. Which leads me to into another point.. This site does not allow me many chances to play against masters... Why is that? I go to that other site , enter tournaments and play against CMs FMs what have you.. I've never played a GM before.. My point is still viable.. they allow MUCH opportunity for advancement.. Which this site limits folks to playing USUALLY within a set range.... Think about that for a minute. Before you make your next play. 3 days ago there i beat a guy in 5 minute blitz who is 1850ish elo.. And it was easy.. Beat him in 12 moves.. Not even a challenge.. they gave me like 65 elo for that.. I feel like this site would have given me 15 elo.. MAYBE 20. That's really my main point here....
Dec 17, 2020
0
#4
Neither site uses Elo per se but a later refinement of Elo: Chess.com uses Glicko and our main competitor uses Glicko-2. The key thing is that the rating is NOT a sign of your absolute playing strength: it is an indication of where you sit relative to the other players in the same pool. So if one site has a lot of very strong players, you will have a lower rating there than on a site with weaker players.
It is a mistake to think that a rating of 2200 on any site is comparable to a FIDE rating of 2200.
Dec 17, 2020
0
#5
VortexxDr wrote:
Steven-ODonoghue wrote:
Very difficult to believe that someone rated 900 on chess.com could beat "players floating around master elo on another site". Sorry, but that's not true
I absolutely understand your skepticism.. Which leads me to into another point.. This site does not allow me many chances to play against masters . Why is that? I go to that other site , enter tournaments and play against CMs FMs what have you.. I've never played a GM before.. My point is still viable.. they allow MUCH opportunity for advancement.. Which this site limits folks to playing USUALLY within a set range.... The other site does this as well. You are limited to playing with players whom are within 500 points of your rating, outside of tournaments. Therefore I assume when you played the CMs and FMs this was in a tournament. Chess.com also has arena tournaments, which many titled players also play in. Sure, the other chess website probably has a higher number of active titled players, but Chess.com can't help this, and it doesn't have much to do with your "elo heck". Think about that for a minute. Before you. your next play. 3 days ago there i beat a guy in 5 minute blitz who is 1850ish elo.. And it was easy.. Beat him in 12 moves.. Not even a challenge.. they gave me like 65 elo for that.. This is because you hadn't played many games on that site, so your Glicko RD was high. The other site awards 6 points for a win and subtracts 6 for a loss. Even against someone massively higher rated, you would still probably only earn a similar number of rating points to chess.com (15-16) I feel like this site would have given me 15 elo.. MAYBE 20. That's really my main point here....
ELO Hell doesn't exist. It's a mental block, an excuse for not winning your matches. You will naturally climb ranking if you are good enough in a 1 versus 1 like chess.
Dec 17, 2020
0
#7
I thought you could pick your starting rating, anywhere from 800 to 1200 (maybe higher?). I started at 1000. It seemed fair since I was familiar with the game but hadn't played in about 45 years.
practiceO wrote:
ELO Hell doesn't exist. It's a mental block, an excuse for not winning your matches. You will naturally climb ranking if you are good enough in a 1 versus 1 like chess.
You right. I just gotta man up and plow through this.. It's easy. It just takes time. Gotta buckle down and play methodically. I can play for tricks on lichess. But not here. The average players at my rating are pretty straight forward here. I appreciate the cut and dry logic praticeO. ~ cheers
Dec 17, 2020
0
#9
m_connors wrote:
I thought you could pick your starting rating, anywhere from 800 to 1200 (maybe higher?). I started at 1000. It seemed fair since I was familiar with the game but hadn't played in about 45 years.
You can start with a rating anywhere between 400 and 2000 depending on an option selected at account creation ranging from "new to chess" to "expert". This is fairly new though, about a year ago, the options were ranging from 800 to 1800.
hi vortexxdr, had a look at a few of your 30min rapid games. i don't intend to be mean but the careless mistakes you're making are why your rating is so low. it's not to do with chess.com rating systems.
martinchess1 wrote:
hi vortexxdr, had a look at a few of your 30min rapid games. i don't intend to be mean but the careless mistakes you're making are why your rating is so low. it's not to do with chess.com rating systems.
lol... nice. I mean.. Don't even mention the games where I play with zero mistakes zero blunders zero inaccuracy.. Why would you? Clearly you are scanning my account for weakness. Instead of logical critiques. Let me translate and recap your comment for you.... "hi" coming off cordial and friendly. Followed by "I scanned some of your loses. You lost those." Interesting.. What else have you uncovered detective? "i don't intend to be mean." hilarious... "but you play bad and chess dot com is good..." ....... What else you got? Is that it? *dust off shoulder*.... Wanna play? I don't mean to ask you to step off your high horse.. But maybe put your money where your mouth is?.. A win against you could really add some clout to my profile. =D A nice humbling experience. What do you say?
I agree with the idea of a multiplier for winning multiple in a row. This account is one my parents helped create for me when I was five, so naturally I ended up with a low rating. I stopped playing for many years, and when I came back I had to grind my way up in rapid from about 1000 to my current rating of 1460, and I'm still rising (Though slowly at this point, so just below 1500 is probably around my real level). I had to do that painstakingly 8 points at a time, and there are times I felt that if I could just have played more games my rating would have risen faster. The current system isn't horrible, it'll work eventually, but if someone does manage to win multiple games in a row there's no reason I can see they shouldn't net a few extra points.
LeBrianJames wrote:
I agree with the idea of a multiplier for winning multiple in a row. This account is one my parents helped create for me when I was five, so naturally I ended up with a low rating. I stopped playing for many years, and when I came back I had to grind my way up in rapid from about 1000 to my current rating of 1460, and I'm still rising (Though slowly at this point, so just below 1500 is probably around my real level). I had to do that painstakingly 8 points at a time, and there are times I felt that if I could just have played more games my rating would have risen faster. The current system isn't horrible, it'll work eventually, but if someone does manage to win multiple games in a row there's no reason I can see they shouldn't net a few extra points.
That is awesome.. Sounds like chess has been a journey for you. Inspiring. I'll try my best to get my blitz above 1000. I just need to fight the temptation to go for cheese. Right? Those quick wins are a real rush!.. Downfall being the quick refuted plays that lead to epic loss. I gotta change my ways. :3
Dec 17, 2020
0
#14
Players need to be gaining the same amount of rating points that their opponents are losing, otherwise rating points will be coming out of thin air. And it doesn't make much sense to penalize opponents for losing to someone who happens to be on a winning streak. If rating points are coming out of thin air then the entire sites pool will be slowly inflated to the point where eventually 2000 will become a beginners rating.
hey vortexxdr, apologies for the polite tone of my last post. the average CAPS score from your last 8 rapid games was about 32%. you won 5 of them. rapid play is considered a reasonable indication of our playing ability. the CAPS score system is being refined but the data collected indicates that an average CAPS score of 76% would mean one would probably play to an ELO rating of about 1200.
My only real gripe about this awesome site is the fact that people who start playing chess here (learn all the basics and rules of play) they often get sent to super low elo... Say you have never played chess. Or are only loosely familiar with the rules. This site just starts you out playing ranked. The point I'm really trying to hit here, Is the fact that here on chess dot com my elo is straight up embarrassing. While the rest of the world sees me as a master in the making. The thing I often encounter is Other players in a similar situation.. Their elo is much lower than their skill level. I mean... If you go ahead and challenge a 1000 elo computer, you will easily crush it. No problems. But a lot of the times I run into player perched at 800 elo. And I get wrecked by solid strats and tactics...
It's actually very frustrating.... Considering my elo is around 1300 on other sites. And I absolutely walk through players on one of them; they have a mass of players with what I perceived as inflated elo. My views have changed. I think to fix this "stuck in elo heck" concept.. We implement a system where you are rewarded for consistent consecutive wins. If you win a game, great. If you win 5 in a row. I think the rewards should be multiplied, to an extent. I mean.... What am I gonna do? Hard work? Forget that... I'm a chess player. I use my brain avoid hard work like the plague.
This will probably get comments coming from those with "good" elos. At the end of the day, it's just a number. So why does it matter to me? Exactly...
Is there anyway to get another chance at provisional matches? If not... That's not right. Obviously you could practice offline or on other facets of play. Read books, watch videos, ect,ect,ect,ect... Me myself personally... I took a long break from chess dot com because I wasn't ready. I played something like 1k matches offline to prepare more. Life isn't fair. And chess dot come is part of life... I get it. If we live in a world that says "You get one shot at provisionals!" That's not right... Fix it.
I feel like most of the audience is still not hearing me... I don't assume the world revolves around me.. I feel that there are at least a million other players who feel like "novice" is a serious grind on this site. And it shouldn't be. It should actually just feel like a basic tutorial to make it through novice.. The reality is, it's a pit. Or maybe it's more like a big ocean under 1000 elo... Everyone is treading water.
My main question here.. Why is the elo system so flawed overall...? I have beaten players floating around master elo on the other site... Yet chess dot com kids 800-1000 elo are insanely good at chess.. Makes no sense. Please elaborate? Try to keep the replies PG and classy. And attempt to reframe from attacking me. I'm not attacking anyone.. Just speaking my mind.