This site bases its provisional rating based at the average level of players on the site. A lot of websites before the implementation of provisional, and/or incorporating averages, would just assume 1500 is a good place to start and go from there. I personally prefer it when provisional starts out low because you get less people making new accounts and less people feeling bad because their rating is below the starting rating.
I feel that I deserve a higher rating
Sort:
FN_Perfect_Idiot wrote:
Then why not start out at zero?
So people would have a negative rating? How is that not even more discouraging?
FN_Perfect_Idiot wrote:
Then why not start out at zero?
Assume the player joining is average, hence a rating of zero. The player loses a few games. What should their rating be?
FN_Perfect_Idiot wrote:
Just keep it at zero...?
This might actually work. (FIDE does the same, I believe. After u become a titled player, you can't slip below a certain rating number anymore.)
May 11, 2013
0
#108
If you think about it makes sense because you have to introduce a lower limit somewhere. Even if its a soft limit. The upper limit is a natural soft limit (recall the 2nd derivative, the closer you get to the wall the harder you apply the brakes). My problem is that it starts so low, its depressing.
FN_Perfect_Idiot wrote:
If you think about it makes sense because you have to introduce a lower limit somewhere. Even if its a soft limit. The upper limit is a natural soft limit (recall the 2nd derivative, the closer you get to the wall the harder you apply the brakes). My problem is that it starts so low, its depressing.
My God...he has heard of simple calculus
Marcokim wrote:
Your definition of "average" is intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Most people would be seduced by the lure of thinking that a fair comparison would be the 50th percentile man versus the 50th percentile woman, 70th versus 70th, 99th versus 99th... like for like. Obviously this is wrong and a "fairer" test is to compare the 99.9th percentile female to the typical male. Or to turn your test around, I'd be surprised to learn that any woman ever, Judit Polgar not necessarily excepted, would be a match for Fischer when he was 15.
Lets put it this way, are you smarter than your sisters? Probably not (assuming natural differences) any smarter or dumber than your brothers.
Also there are female freaks of cognitive ability... do you remember the Indian woman who could multiply 18digit numbers in a number of seconds (I forget her name)... its very hard to control such a scientific study, so it safer to remain in the realm of hypothesis. Environmental factors may be more powerful than you think. Kasparov (for example) had studied at least 100,000 positions by the age of 14yrs at Botvinik's school the old master was not averse to whipping the little boys silly or depriving them of food if they didn't complete his homework, which involved 10hr days and maybe 4hr nights studying chess games and submitting the work in the morning. Cruel punishment by any modern standards.
Fischer studied thousands of games on his own as a way to deal with loneliness and being abandoned by his mother. Carlsen had a dad who basically abandoned his life inorder to serve his childs talent, even obtaining special permits to allow the kid not to attend school, an overcontrolling father who makes his son his personal project.
So no-one can make a strong case either way... too many unknowns. However I can say that the only way to improve the skill is to work at it.
Your last point's quite true. As to your first, funny you should ask, I'm way smarter than my sisters, but I don't especially put it down to being male. (I have no brothers so can't comment on that.)
Again, citing the occasional freak on either side of the gender divide as though they proved anything concerning the general case is probably leading nowhere very helpful. But your mention of Fischer is, in my opinion, very much to the point. Without having to be compelled to (and the same has been true of most geniuses, I would speculate) Fischer devoted an immense amount of time and energy to the field in which his talents lay. It may well be that there is a gender difference there. Women, so the factoid runs, are superior multitaskers - could it be that men, on the other hand, are superior monotaskers, to the extent that even when physical advantages are taken out of the picture, it is men who are most likely to concentrate to the point of obsession on maximising their achievement in a single field? This, even in the absence of a significant difference in raw talent (but isn't the ability and willingness to concentrate so intensively a talent in itself) might account for the visible difference in achievement.
And of course for this to mean anything you have to be concentrating to some purpose, which brings us right back to the OP and his risible claim that he should be graded higher in recognition of his hard work. 
I don't agree with you, if you want your rating to be up.....simple solution is to win more games....if you are that good but can't win a game....I'm happy with my rating... 700 for now.
May 11, 2013
0
#112
Maximus99 wrote:
I don't agree with you, if you want your rating to be up.....simple solution is to win more games....if you are that good but can't win a game....I'm happy with my rating... 700 for now.
I see what your saying, and I don't disagree but, what about anomalies where someone might keep losing to people that are clearly worse than them. If you look at the "bad luck" spectrum they would be found on the edge of it.
The point is the solution is obvious yes, but not simple (apart from artificially adjusting my rating to correct for skew).
FN_Perfect_Idiot wrote:
Maximus99 wrote:
I don't agree with you, if you want your rating to be up.....simple solution is to win more games....if you are that good but can't win a game....I'm happy with my rating... 700 for now.
I see what your saying, and I don't disagree but, what about anomalies where someone might keep losing to people that are clearly worse than them. If you look at the "bad luck" spectrum they would be found on the edge of it.
Wouldn't you have to question the evaluation of relative strength, then?
May 11, 2013
0
#114
perhaps you should stop caring so much about your rating and actually focus on your chess ability and having fun. That way i'm sure your rating will be much higher after a bit of work.
And also, at your level (and mine) I don't think we really need to put that much effort in. All I'm doing at the minute is loads of tactics, learn a bit strategy and playing the same opening for white and black, yet seem to be improving at a good rate. Not that much effort is being put in.
May 11, 2013
0
#117
Is it free? Thats also a serious amount of effort :P I'll try it out for a bit.
FN_Perfect_Idiot wrote:
Maximus99 wrote:
I don't agree with you, if you want your rating to be up.....simple solution is to win more games....if you are that good but can't win a game....I'm happy with my rating... 700 for now.
I see what your saying, and I don't disagree but, what about anomalies where someone might keep losing to people that are clearly worse than them. If you look at the "bad luck" spectrum they would be found on the edge of it.
The point is the solution is obvious yes, but not simple (apart from artificially adjusting my rating to correct for skew).
You can't lose to someone and be clearly better than them. The game of chess doesn't have any inherent luck built into it. It's not like poker where your opponent can get a royal flush and there's nothing you can do. There is no luck in the game rules. The only way for you to lose is to play worse moves than they do, and by playing worse moves than they do you cannot be clearly better: you must be worse.
May 11, 2013
0
#119
Frootloop2 wrote:
FN_Perfect_Idiot wrote:
Maximus99 wrote:
I don't agree with you, if you want your rating to be up.....simple solution is to win more games....if you are that good but can't win a game....I'm happy with my rating... 700 for now.
I see what your saying, and I don't disagree but, what about anomalies where someone might keep losing to people that are clearly worse than them. If you look at the "bad luck" spectrum they would be found on the edge of it.
The point is the solution is obvious yes, but not simple (apart from artificially adjusting my rating to correct for skew).
You can't lose to someone and be clearly better than them. The game of chess doesn't have any inherent luck built into it. It's not like poker where your opponent can get a royal flush and there's nothing you can do. There is no luck in the game rules. The only way for you to lose is to play worse moves than they do, and by playing worse moves than they do you cannot be clearly better: you must be worse.
Mr Chessexplained would entirely disagree with you. Of course there is luck in chess. 
May 11, 2013
0
#120
FN_Perfect_Idiot wrote:
Sometimes I feel that my rating is a bit low considering that I put a lot of effort into getting a higher rating. Its not my "fault" that I don't get the results I need despite me putting the effort in. I know those with "higher" ratings will disagree but I feel that I would be more motivated if my rating was 2000 (Maybe those at 2000 could go to 3000 for example). I just think people with 500 or 800, they try real hard but aren't rewarded enough for their efforts.
My point is it would be nice if effort = rating rather than luck/success = rating. I would like to point out this is a chess site and not an offical rating system, so why not increase ratings a bit? If I could be 2000 I'd be happy with that, title or no.
I'd be interested if anyone feels the same way.
in short you want freebie points to prop up your frail ego.get real man,chess is not a game for whiners.you need to quit that attitude first to improve your ratings and trash your ego.
because the ratings here start at a realistic level, without flattering the newcomer