No.
Find your REAL ELO rating: ELOMETER.NET then post here the results
Sort:
I think the test overrates: Idid it some months ago and it was around 1800, that I guess to be too high for my level. I must have saved a screenshot of my test somewhere.
Pulpofeira wrote:
No.
I agree! :D 1700-1800 hopefully
1829
Jimmykay wrote:
Based on your move choices, our estimate of your Elo rating is 1866, with a 95% confidence interval of [1739...1993].
I as drun,k nowhere near that good.
I have no trouble believing that you were drunk when you commented.
This whole test is garbage, it allows completely illegal moves, and still gives you a result.
Based on your move choices, our estimate of your Elo rating is 1035, with a 95% confidence interval of [899...1170].
I was moving the pawns backwards, putting the knights in the other corner of the board, or moving my king in check through the whole thing.
It shouldn't allow any illegal moves.
2320
Hahaha, totally agree with the last 2 comments 😂
Thank you for participating!
Based on your move choices, our estimate of your Elo rating is 1986, with a 95% confidence interval of [1862...2111].
14 more points arggghhhhhh. BAM BAM.
Jul 3, 2017
0
#193
Based on your move choices, our estimate of your Elo rating is 2174, with a 95% confidence interval of [2044...2305]
UtrechtRose wrote:
GnrfFrtzl wrote:
This whole test is garbage, it allows completely illegal moves, and still gives you a result.
It is indeed garbage. But not for that reason. It is quite reasonable to allow illegal moves. Absolute beginners very often make illegal moves, and that can be a factor in assessing their strength. The real problem with it is that for most people it will suggest that you are much stronger than you really are.
As someone else has said your REAL rating is whatever FIDE or your national association has calculated, based on your performance in OTB chess.
It's not reasonable at all to allow illegal moves.
Imagine a test where you only tick one of four boxes as an answer to each question.
What would the result be if you simply ticked all of the answers to all of the questions?
That would be what's called useless data, and would require the test to be repeated.
It wasn't intended as an analogy, neither a comparison, just another example, and that's clear as all hell by how I worded it.
I've never said 'it's the same as...' or anything like that.
--
So you think it's logical that the test actually gives a result of say 1100 Elo to someone who makes only illegal moves, and that doesn't mean the test is flawed?
Can you show me any test of any kind that allows any 'illegal moves' and still gives a result?
The test never says 'invalid input', or 'illegal move'.
It simply goes on, and comes up with a random result between 1000-1200 Elo.
So the beginners who have a rating like that in real life make illegal moves, too?
I only played illegal moves
Jul 4, 2017
0
#197
I moved my king next to the the other king 76 times and got 1035. Meaningless.
UtrechtRose wrote:
If your multiple choice Example was meant as a comparison with the Elometer it was a pretty poor one as the nature of the test process is quite different and it is not analogous to Elometer. Arguing by analogy is yet another logical fallacy, but a proper analogy suggests that more fundamental similarities might exist, and can be looked for, and that makes it useful.
I have already agree that the Elometer is nonsense, and it is especially so if it gives a 1000+ rating to someone that makes a lot of illegal moves. It is not that it is illogical, it is a that it is wrong.
Whether it is sensible to allow illegal moves and use the fact that a player made them in assessing their strength is a different matter. It is a question completely independent of the flawed implementation of Elometer. I think you can do it either way. You think it should be prevented. Both views are unsubstantiated opinion, but some of us love our opinions and think everyone should share them.
If you can back up your opinion with some sound logic and genuine facts, rather than stating it as a fact (when it is not), you might persuade me to change mine, but getting offended or just re-stating it, or shouting louder is not going to make any difference.
Just reread whatever I wrote.
All I said was that the test was flawed since it allows illegal moves.
Whatever else you thought I said or implied was simply what you read into it.
Jimmykay wrote:
I moved my king next to the the other king 76 times and got 1035. Meaningless.
Exactly. Finally someone else noticed it.
So, I'm a 1545 player?