Find your REAL ELO rating: ELOMETER.NET then post here the results
Sort:
Jul 6, 2017
0
#262
It said i was 1686 in blitz and i had to laugh so much because im not even 1500 in blitz actually
It gave me a rating estimate of 2370 which would be closest to my tactics rating on chess.com.
Jul 6, 2017
0
#264
@GrntFrtzl: in my opinion you don't get my point. Theoretically, I agree with you on all your statements.
I looked at it if you were a bugtester. How relevant are your bugs? Why should the programming team be interested in bugs concerning people that do not take their service seriously? If I were programming - having done that for years - then would I not be really interested in your results. If it was for a commercial application? Oh yes, then it would be interesting.But for a public service in my freetime? Nope.
petrip wrote:
fewlio wrote:
JeffGreen333 wrote:
fewlio wrote:
I've scored around 1560. I play above that on chess.com by taking more time on moves than I took on that tedious test, and also using the analysis board to work out lines (which you can't do on that test).
You're not supposed to use an analysis board during chess.com games. I'm pretty sure that's cheating (not sure about daily games). Anyway, it's better to force yourself to look ahead several moves, without using an analysis board. Then you'll be able to play that well in a real, OTB game.
I think it's allowed. And on the contrary, I find I can do board moves in my head better after using the analysis board, I think it's helping.
it is allowed in daily. For starter there is even analysis board button.
None of live games it is allowed
I don't think fewlio means that he's analyzing on the computer. I think he's meaning he makes a board where he can personally analyze the position, by playing out moves and variations and studying them, and spending time. Even Danny Rensch does that on Chess Today.
Excalibr4 wrote:
Heh, I'm 61 but I have played 1 minute to avoid cheaters, for 20 years online. The site I was at before didn't have a "lie detector" like the TT to let you know if the person was using a computer to help on the daily. I based my assertion on the fact that computers are impossible to stay even with past 10 moves. However, in OTB play I have beaten 2000 plus players. I am too old to go back and try to memorize all the trees, but I am working what one poster mentioned about Reshevsky, on my daily games. Once I improve my openings enough, I will try faster, but longer games like 10 and 15 minutes. For now I have plenty of fun with 1 minute. Keeps my mind nimble at my advancing age.
So, I guess I can't blame it on my age then. lol Actually, I've always been much better in longer time controls than in short ones. I have trouble competing with 1400-1500 players in g/10. I wouldn't even try anything faster than g/5. Never have ..... never will. I play Expert level chess in my daily games though, without using an analysis board or a computer. If my opponent's ARE using them, then maybe I'm even better than I thought (or else I'm just studying the board much longer than they are and am finding more candidate moves).
LoekBergman wrote:
@GrntFrtzl: in my opinion you don't get my point. Theoretically, I agree with you on all your statements.
I looked at it if you were a bugtester. How relevant are your bugs? Why should the programming team be interested in bugs concerning people that do not take their service seriously? If I were programming - having done that for years - then would I not be really interested in your results. If it was for a commercial application? Oh yes, then it would be interesting.But for a public service in my freetime? Nope.
Just to add to this comment. It's a free test, with no registration, email address or fee required. So, the programmer(s) probably aren't going to fix the bugs anyway. They have nothing to gain by doing so.
Jul 6, 2017
0
#269
It's just for fun. There's nothing scientific, reliable or conclusive about it. Just go with the flow.
removed for now, 2025
The problem with this meter is that it does not calculate the time it takes to solve the puzzles.
2246 elo. But I sat there for hours solving the puzzles.
2246 elo. But I sat there for hours solving the puzzles.
Jul 6, 2017
0
#273
LM_player wrote:
The problem with this meter is that it does not calculate the time it takes to solve the puzzles.
2246 elo. But I sat there for hours solving the puzzles.
2246 elo. But I sat there for hours solving the puzzles.
people keep saying that. But how do you know that? Because there is not an html clock in front of you?
Jimmykay wrote:
LM_player wrote:
The problem with this meter is that it does not calculate the time it takes to solve the puzzles.
2246 elo. But I sat there for hours solving the puzzles.
2246 elo. But I sat there for hours solving the puzzles.
people keep saying that. But how do you know that? Because there is not an html clock in front of you?
Yes. There's no visible clock and there's no mention of the puzzles being timed in the instructions. The original version did have a clock and WAS timed. That's how I know it's no longer timed.
Jimmykay wrote:
Does it now say it is no longer being timed?
No, but why would they take the clock off of the page if it was still being timed?
LoekBergman wrote:
@GrntFrtzl: in my opinion you don't get my point. Theoretically, I agree with you on all your statements.
I looked at it if you were a bugtester. How relevant are your bugs? Why should the programming team be interested in bugs concerning people that do not take their service seriously? If I were programming - having done that for years - then would I not be really interested in your results. If it was for a commercial application? Oh yes, then it would be interesting.But for a public service in my freetime? Nope.
Still bugs me, though (pun unintended), that they make a program that spits out results given nothing but useless inputs.
At that point, why even bother releasing it?
Jul 7, 2017
0
#278
@GnrFrtzl and @JeffGreen333: because it is fun making it and they see it as a service they themselves would like to have. They focus on what they think is necessairy to make it a good service, not on all the things that might happen.
I think batgirl expressed it well. It's a flow. Enjoy the flow and if you would like to help them, let the flow grow. :-)
So I got a score of 1897, which stunned me, and is a solid 600-700 points than what Chess.com puts me at.
Just leaving this one here for now, for the record.