If you think this technique will increase their ratings reliably, then you don't understand the rating system.
High-ranking low life players!
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
Nov 7, 2012
0
#4
FirebrandX wrote:
Sred wrote:
If you think this technique will increase their ratings reliably, then you don't understand the rating system.
On chess.com it does. I've seen members on here that have around my same blitz rating from playing only below 1600 players. Mine is from fighting 1700-2000 range players. If I did the same as these types, I'd easily have a 2000+ rating.
Statistically, you would suffer very rare defeats that would hurt your rating very much. You win 40 games, getting 1 point from each, then you lose one that costs you 40.
Sred is right.
And also, they might think you want a higher challenge being that low rated. I was rated 1100 at first but then I challenged a few 1500s to get my real rating faster.
It does have floors:
Nov 7, 2012
0
#7
FirebrandX wrote:
Sred wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:
Sred wrote:
If you think this technique will increase their ratings reliably, then you don't understand the rating system.
On chess.com it does. I've seen members on here that have around my same blitz rating from playing only below 1600 players. Mine is from fighting 1700-2000 range players. If I did the same as these types, I'd easily have a 2000+ rating.
Statistically, you would suffer very rare defeats that would hurt your rating very much. You win 40 games, getting 1 point from each, then you lose one that costs you 40.
And yet again, players are exploiting the rating system just as I said. You have to understand that the chess.com elo system doesn't have floors like in the USCF. A player can mop on lower-rateds on here and gain more than they lose. It happens all the time, and I see players all the time with ratings in the 1800-2000 range, yet their average opponent rating is only 1550. You can't get around that fact.
Fide also doesn't have floors. Floors are designed to prevent sandbagging, which is a problem that is very specific to the USCF. Floors do not make ratings more reliable - on the contrary.
Yes, players can choose to play mostly lower rated players. but why would that make their rating less valid? Any mathematical evidence?
Edit: I have to correct myself: such a player might be underrated, because at some point wins will no longer increase his rating. But I don't see why he would end up overrated.
I always play chess games only to up my rating
[COMMENT DELETED]
The fact that there are floors makes that you could exploit the rating system by playing only much higher rated players, your numerous defeats costing you no points.
Strangely, people don't do that. Maybe they just want to win, not to smuggle rating points.
Why are you so mad? So what if their ratings don't match their skill level, though I feel you're dead wrong, because as others mentioned, the risk of losing a low rated match can be up to 20 points versus the 1-2 points you would get from beating a much lower level guy.
I think the rating system is perfect the way it is.
Lastly the people they choose to play decides the type of person they are?
I don't pick any players I play against in chess, but when I get a lower level player I like to play a little more risky and a little more agressive, in turn I'm sure it works out great for both players.
Plenty of times I get a nice rush mate, and plenty of times I have attacked to fast and get countered.
Worry about yourself man..
Nov 7, 2012
0
#12
FirebrandX wrote:
Sred wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:
Sred wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:
Sred wrote:
If you think this technique will increase their ratings reliably, then you don't understand the rating system.
On chess.com it does. I've seen members on here that have around my same blitz rating from playing only below 1600 players. Mine is from fighting 1700-2000 range players. If I did the same as these types, I'd easily have a 2000+ rating.
Statistically, you would suffer very rare defeats that would hurt your rating very much. You win 40 games, getting 1 point from each, then you lose one that costs you 40.
And yet again, players are exploiting the rating system just as I said. You have to understand that the chess.com elo system doesn't have floors like in the USCF. A player can mop on lower-rateds on here and gain more than they lose. It happens all the time, and I see players all the time with ratings in the 1800-2000 range, yet their average opponent rating is only 1550. You can't get around that fact.
Fide also doesn't have floors. Floors are designed to prevent sandbagging, which is a problem that is very specific to the USCF. Floors do not make ratings more reliable - on the contrary.
Yes, players can choose to play mostly lower rated players. but why would that make their rating less valid? Any mathematical evidence?
Edit: I have to correct myself: such a player might be underrated, because at some point wins will no longer increase his rating. But I don't see why he would end up overrated.
Let me try to explain this a little more clearly:
On chess.com blitz, it seems players always gain ratings when they win, even when the opponent is more than 400 points below them.This means if chess.com had correct limits in blitz, it would be impossible for a 2000 to gain rating points from beating someone rated 1599 or below. As it stands right now, I believe they do because I see people all the time with inflated ratings by only playing against opponents well below their ability.
The point I'm trying to get across to you is that it DOES work to do this in blitz on chess.com. I've even seen people with higher rantings than mine, yet only play 1600 or below. If they were forced to play the opponents I play on average, their rating would be well below mine in reality. That means that mopping on lower-rateds, as I've now said multiple times, is working in their favor. Their rating is inflated as a result.
I got your point. You did not get mine. Yes, you may get points from beating a player rated 400 points lower (depending on your Glicko RD). That's perfectly fine. But if the rating difference is 400, you also occasionally lose a game - and many, many rating points.
If the gain from the wins overweights the decrease from the losses, it means that the higher rating is deserved. Do you have any evidence that these players would lose rating points if they started to play higher rated opponents (I mean evidence, not just something you feel in your stomach)?
Playing with people below your level may damage your ranking. Difficult opponent gives better motivation and if you lose you don't go down so fast
actually as far as i have seen in bullet specially, only ~1400 accept my seek(im 1600 bullet atm) so i tried setting my seek as lower limit: -1 upper limit: +400 and my seek didn't get accepted for 5-10 mins at a stretch.
Nov 7, 2012
0
#15
MaciekDomagala wrote:
Playing with people below your level may damage your ranking. Difficult opponent gives better motivation and if you lose you don't go down so fast
Though it's slightly off topic, I'd also like to point out that playing only lower rated opponents won't help improving one's chess.
I like the system where you are paired by the computer [or whatever] and most games are within 150 rating points but you also get players as much as 400 above or below your rating. This way you have to be ready for anything reasonable and the process should be quicker.
Nov 7, 2012
0
#17
And yet if we are only willing to play against higher rankings, then it will become impossible to schedule any games.
Nov 7, 2012
0
#18
ponz111 wrote:
I like the system where you are paired by the computer [or whatever] and most games are within 150 rating points but you also get players as much as 400 above or below your rating. This way you have to be ready for anything reasonable and the process should be quicker.
That's most reasonable and fun.
Nov 7, 2012
0
#19
Lets see some concrete examples of players drastically improving their rating by constantly beating up on players rated at least 400 pts lower, lets say. As already pointed out more than once, you have a lot to lose (even if you draw) and practically nothing to gain from following this strategy as far as your rating is concerned, not to mention your chess skills.
For instance, I'm (over)rated @ 2132 playing a tnmt game with an opponent rated 1709 Here's the breakdown of what's at stake for me: Win: +3 Loss: -29 Draw: -13
Yeah overall I'd probably do very well (ie have a great looking won-loss record) if I didn't play anyone rated +1732 and might at least hover at about 2100 or so, but I wouldn't learn much and what's the pt? To amass a record of +300 -10 =25? I'm trying to improve my game and in general you do that by playing opponents about your level or higher.
I've now limited my open seek score to a more appropriate level.
But really. High ranking players who jump on open seeks from lower ranking players, i.e. a 1400+ player taking on a 900+ player, just to up their ratings on here are low lifes.