Chess.com uses the glicko system which is a legitimate means of rating players. Some argue that it could be implemented better but I wouldn't know anything about that.
I'm a statistician, and not a fan of the glicko system when used for internet chess in a broad-spectrum context (eg. chess.com). The potential for rating distortion in glicko is very high when the most common entity is a player who entered the system and left after playing a single game.
To the op sorry, I think you don't put an effort to improve. Do you study endgames,strategy and tactics from books?Do you play on the chess board the positions in the book you read? And you play bullet a lot, a developing player should avoid bullet, it will not improve your game. Play at longer time control.
Yeah if you put effort into life, you should automatically get a house and everything nice.
With income in dollars or other currency it is found that most people think they would be much happier if they could just earn 20% more money because then they would have more stuff, more financial breathing room, etc. Then if that actually happens they soon find reasons to *need* that 20% raise and the novelty of it wears off and they end up obligated to pay 20% more for a slightly better car or house or cable service that they don't really need. I think it is pretty certain the same thing applies to chess ratings, that everyone feels they would be in a much better spot if their rating could just be 150 points higher. Another truth about numbers is that a person's life isn't really changed financially unless their income is multiplied by a factor of ten. It takes several increments of 20% to get a ten-fold increase. log 10/ log 1.2 = 12.6 so it takes about twelve or thirteen twenty-percent raises to get a result that really changes a life. I suspect the same thing may be true for chess ratings. If you could gain 900 ratings points, then you'd actually start to be really famous, assuming you started out as average.
I hereby award Perfect_Idiot an imaginary rating of 2931. Congratulations on your achievement!
Everyone in Zimbabwe is a quadrillionaire! Why can't everyone be a GM then?
And how many U.S. dollars is that worth?
Final exchange rate was approximately 10^23 Zimbabwe first dollars
10^14 4th dollars was 10^27 first dollars
So officially that is worth about 10,000 usd, officially.
As far as I can tell it was only actually worth 1 usd, unofficially.
That's why Zimbabwe gave up on their dollar.
Note that non of the exchange rates are exactly accurate as Zimbabwe got rid of the dollar in 2009.
The actual cash rate is estimated at 300 000 000 000 000 per USD. That is about 1/3 of dollar for that trillion dollar bill.
Their inflation was estimated at 89,700,000,000,000,000,000,000%
You are underrated as a comedian for good reason. Because, truth be known, you are not a truly perfect idiot yet. Perfect idiocy would be if you could get your rating down to 0 and maintain it. And isn't that really a nobler goal, in the ultimate sense?
I feel i deserve to be the world champion
Me too, but that Anand guy keeps refusing when I challenge him.
Hello, I am a chess expert, rated 2000. I am looking for a player in the 1300-1500 range who is willing to submit himself completely to me, giving me a rating in the range 3300-3500. I feel I deserve this.
Hello, I am a chess expert, rated 2000. I am looking for a player in the 1300-1500 range who is willing to submit himself completely to me, giving me a rating in the range 3300-3500. I feel I deserve this.
Sounds like you want to try the "Personals" section of the Forum.
funny article I know its a bit tongue in cheek but hey... as was said before inflating overall ratings will not bring much long term satisfaction to anyone. More important than your current rating is your current progress. Check out Magnus for example:
7yrs = 1700, 10yrs = 2000, 12yr = 2400, 14yrs = 2550, 16yrs = 2650, 18yrs = 2700, 20yrs = 2780, 21yrs = 2840
Magnus says that getting over 2000 was his "Eureka" moment, he suddenly moved from a linear growth to a quantum leap in understanding, gaining almost 600points between 10yrs and 14yrs. Of course probably less that 1/10,000 chess players are talented enough, even given the extensive training, to become GMs let alone strong GMs. You might need to invest in a coach at this point to get over the 1800 barrier, there are obviously fundamental structural aspects of the game that are beyond your understanding at this point. Your tactical understanding is probably as good as any GMs but it is the deeper, structural, strategic, positional aspect of the game that is still underdeveloped.
For example looking at Karpov analyse a game between 2200 players he is able to point out structural defects in their approach from move 12 onwards and I am sure he could easily beat them by just diverting slightly from theory earlier exposing their flaws. And these are CMs. Imagine how much we sub-1800 players DON'T know about the game, and how much we can learn.
Didn't you post about needing a title?? A participation title? Now this?
I agree. Even thought your user name is perfect_idiot it does not mean people should call you it. That was very mean Jason.
I think you have an admirer here Perfecto?
If you want to improve your chess start studying some books about it or play through some (a lot?), of the masters' games, and maybe even get yourself a tutor. You won't improve your ratings by spending all day here on this chat thing trying to wind people up. Hell you've even got ME wasting my time on here, when I could be playing chess.