Leechers of chess.com

Sort:
llama36

Ok, I did a blog about setting your seeks and how it affects your rating.

https://www.chess.com/blog/llama36/maximize-your-rating-with-this-setting

llama36
Destiny wrote:
llama36 wrote:
Destiny wrote:
llama36 wrote:

But a thought experiment like this...

Say 3 players, each 1200. One exclusively plays 1100, one exclusively plays 1200, and last plays only 1300.

Then during each game, we flip a coin for each player (the 1200 and their opponent). Heads their skill level goes up 50 points and tails it goes down 50 points. Over a large number of games the average for each player will be 1200, but the person who only plays 1300s will have the highest peak rating...

... at least this is what I expect. I could write some code to simulate it... this could be a fun blog post I suppose. I'll consider it.

If a 1200 flips heads twice in a row, do they go up 100 points? Or does their rating reset to 1200 after every game and can only go up to 1250 and down to 1150?

Yeah, the coin flip only lasts for that 1 game.

And I wouldn't adjust their rating, only their skill level... in other words a 1200 who is playing like a 1250 (or 1150). And that'd be for the purpose of simulating someone having a good or bad day.

EDIT
Then if they win, and their new rating is 2010 or whatever, then the next coin flip could put them at 1250 or 1150... I have to remember there are 3 ratings to keep track of which makes this a bit annoying

There's the intrinsic or base level skill (which will be 1200 and never change)
There's the adjusted skill due to having a good or bad day (which will be 1150 or 1250, and will  be the one that influences win %).
And then there's the actual rating which is what will go up or down due to a win or loss.

import java.util.Random;

public class Main
{
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        
        
        Random r = new Random();
        int x = 1200; //player who plays 1100
        int y = 1200; //player who plays 1200
        int z = 1200; //player who plays 1300
        
        int games = 50;
        for (int i = 1; i<= games; i++) {
            
            int chance1 = r.nextInt(2);
            int chance2 = r.nextInt(100);
            
            //if they play like 1250
            if(chance1 == 0) {
                 if(chance2 <= 57) {
                    x -= 12;
                 }
                 else
                    x += 20;
            }
            //if they play like 1150
            else {
                if(chance2 <= 70) {
                    x -= 12;
                }
                else {
                    x += 20;
                }
            }    
    }
    
    //player who plays 1200
           for (int i = 1; i<= games; i++) {
            
            int chance1 = r.nextInt(2);
            int chance2 = r.nextInt(100);
            
            //if they play like 1250
            if(chance1 == 0) {
                 if(chance2 <= 57) {
                     y+= 16;
                 }
                 else
                    y -= 16;
            }
            //if they play like 1150
            else {
                if(chance2 <= 43) {
                    y += 16;
                }
                else {
                    y -= 16;
                }
            }    
    }
       //player who plays 1100
       for (int i = 1; i<= games; i++) {
            
            int chance1 = r.nextInt(2);
            int chance2 = r.nextInt(100);
            
            //if they play like 1250
            if(chance1 == 0) {
                 if(chance2 <= 70) {
                     z += 12;
                 }
                 else
                    y -= 20;
            }
            //if they play like 1150
            else {
                if(chance2 <= 57) {
                    z += 12;
                }
                else {
                    z -= 20;
                }
            }    
    }
    
    System.out.println("New rating of player who played 1300: " + x);
    System.out.println("New rating of player who played 1200: " + y);
    System.out.println("New rating of player who played 1100: " + z);
    
}
}

Set i to 5000 and see what happens happy.png

When you update ratings by a fixed amount (and under the conditions of this code), all ratings either increase forever or decrease forever.

ninjaswat
GraveMurky wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:

 you won't always though lol and that is the point. 

If everyone sets their seeks to -50 +inf... Then we will all get paired with people within 50 rating points. This is the worst case scenario, according to OP: everyone tries to leech off the system.

Well, in the end... the result does not seem to be that dramatic, does it?

GraveMurky wrote:

I might believe you if you were playing 30 min games on lichess.

What?


They won't always bud.  If that was the case this thread wouldn't exist!  lol  

And I would believe you have long Que times if playing 30 mins on lichess.  Not on chess.com.  And as I said,  that should be left up to chess.com's discretion.  Not the players.

They won't always... what? 

And what does lichess have to do with anything? Why would it be different on lichess and how does that relate to the OP?

And it's queue.

 

First of all,  not everyone has their settings set to that.   And users should NOT be allowed to change those settings for rated games.  

I'd believe you might have long time ques if playing 30 min games on lichess.   But on chess.com?  There are no long wait times no matter what time control you select.  And as I said,  that should be up to chess.coms discretion how long the qeues should be and if they should pair you with someone out of your rating range.  Not the players.

I will say that at the 2200+ level (or in @b1zmark's case the 2300 level) there just aren't enough people in the pool for you to always get someone your rating or higher, especially in rapid. That's why most people start farming people below 2200 in my experience... I might start doing so as well happy.png it's not immediate pairings (through no fault of chess.com) and if you want a game quickly you usually have to widen your range.

llama36
ninjaswat wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:

 you won't always though lol and that is the point. 

If everyone sets their seeks to -50 +inf... Then we will all get paired with people within 50 rating points. This is the worst case scenario, according to OP: everyone tries to leech off the system.

Well, in the end... the result does not seem to be that dramatic, does it?

GraveMurky wrote:

I might believe you if you were playing 30 min games on lichess.

What?


They won't always bud.  If that was the case this thread wouldn't exist!  lol  

And I would believe you have long Que times if playing 30 mins on lichess.  Not on chess.com.  And as I said,  that should be left up to chess.com's discretion.  Not the players.

They won't always... what? 

And what does lichess have to do with anything? Why would it be different on lichess and how does that relate to the OP?

And it's queue.

 

First of all,  not everyone has their settings set to that.   And users should NOT be allowed to change those settings for rated games.  

I'd believe you might have long time ques if playing 30 min games on lichess.   But on chess.com?  There are no long wait times no matter what time control you select.  And as I said,  that should be up to chess.coms discretion how long the qeues should be and if they should pair you with someone out of your rating range.  Not the players.

I will say that at the 2200+ level (or in @b1zmark's case the 2300 level) there just aren't enough people in the pool for you to always get someone your rating or higher, especially in rapid. That's why most people start farming people below 2200 in my experience... I might start doing so as well it's not immediate pairings (through no fault of chess.com) and if you want a game quickly you usually have to widen your range.

@steven-odonoghue said the same for bullet ratings around 2400 or 2500... you have to wait for games.

I think that's why the really high players (like Hikaru) almost always play lots of rematches.

Rematches, by the way, are a good way to boost your rating for sure... you just have to find someone on tilt who keeps agreeing and you can set a really high peak rating record for yourself.

1g1yy
llama36 wrote:

Set i to 5000 and see what happens

When you update ratings by a fixed amount (and under the conditions of this code), all ratings either increase forever or decrease forever.

Which is to say that mathematically, his contention is correct in the short term. But unfortunately, reality sets in shortly after and as the player gets unwarranted rating increases, he's again playing higher rated players and eventually the game result is less and less likely to end up in his favor.  With the alternative being he's really getting better and playing better, and moving the goalposts so to speak.  So, again, the rating system does what it's supposed to do with a small short term hiccup present when players attempt to play higher rated opponents all the time.  If this is something a person can't live with, wow, they've really got bigger issues. 

Your code doesn't account for that scenario (I concede it's intended to be a quick and dirty check).  But the only way your findings can be valid is if the player continues to improve, which is the point of playing better players. So if that's the case, again, the system works. 

MaetsNori
llama36 wrote:

... yes it's a bit silly to say "watch me lose against high rated players, that's how I'll increase my rating" but in practice playing exclusively higher rated players will help boost your rating a bit and I think it's because this is the condition that rewards you the most when you're playing your best, and punishes you the least when you're playing poorly.

Mathematically, this is likely true.

But psychologically, it might not be worth it for some players to play exclusively against higher-rated opponents.

Because this can lead to the most losses. And repeated losses can contribute to tilting.

It's entirely possible that someone changes their seek range to -25/+400, then loses their next 10 games in a row. Oof.

Then, of course, as any sane person would do, they then throw their electronic device against the wall in frustration, breaking it. Thus, the cycle of tilt continues ... tongue.png

Kowarenai

ah the chaotic posts like these is what makes my day, gotta love the maniac posters

xFallesafe
Oh well, leave and go somewhere else👋
yetanotheraoc

Well if I ever start playing rated chess here at chess.com (nah, won't happen, what am I saying?), then I will take @IronSteam1 suggestion and set the margins symmetrically like -100..+100 or similar. Because morally I agree with OP -- it's wrong to want to *only* play against stronger players. Although as stated by another commenter, if _everybody_ chose -25..+infinity then it has the same effect as everybody choosing -25..+25, it's still possible for some action to be wrong where the *intent* is wrong, even when the *outcome* is not wrong.

As for whether playing exclusively up (higher rateds) leads to artificial Elo gain, it does, but not because of the math.

  1. The Elo system models the result of a chess game as a continuous function, but an actual chess game can only have three results.
  2. As Elo goes up, it's becomes much harder to win a game than to draw one.
  3. There are fewer high Elo opponents than low Elo opponents.
  4. The high Elo players are trying not to lose Elo in individual games!

It's actually the "draw threat" that transfers Elo from the high rated to the low rated. And we can see this easily by comparing GM Elo changes when they play invitational tournaments vs open tournaments. GMs who regularly play in invitationals tend to maintain rating, the same GM who plays in an open tournament tends to lose rating (Tarjan vs Kramnik, anyone?). Certainly the high but not quite high enough GMs who can't get (enough) invitations and have to play in opens know this bitter truth. Every open they play causes them to leak Elo and drift that much further from the precious next invitation. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1886224

That said, players who exclusively play up do themselves no favors improvement-wise. Since they are Elo-rewarded for a draw, they learn and reinforce a defensive style, and become incapable (relatively speaking) of turning around and themselves defeating a lower-rated opponent. They may pat themselves on the back with their +50 Elo inflation (on paper!), but a year or ten from now they will still be in the same place.

tofudriftingboi

Cope harder

SFLovett
TheNameofNames wrote:

The rating system doesnt take into account other variables, but they did consider how long a player has been away i read that when i was learning the formula they use 

Nothing needs to be known except the result of the game and the ratings of the two players. Glicko does subtract points from players who've been away, something the old Elo system did not do, but if they've actually become weaker they'd lose those points anyway once they start playing again.

SFLovett
yetanotheraoc wrote:

Well if I ever start playing rated chess here at chess.com (nah, won't happen, what am I saying?), then I will take @IronSteam1 suggestion and set the margins symmetrically like -100..+100 or similar. Because morally I agree with OP -- it's wrong to want to *only* play against stronger players.

It would be a moral question if it were true that it affects the ratings of other players, but it does not. If anyone wants to only play higher rated players, for the challenge maybe, they should do that. To each their own. But if they do it for the sake of their own rating, they're kidding themselves.

SFLovett
yetanotheraoc wrote:

As for whether playing exclusively up (higher rateds) leads to artificial Elo gain, it does, but not because of the math.

 

That isn't true exactly because of the math. Glicko has no other function than to account for rating differences when evaluating game results.

SFLovett
yetanotheraoc wrote:

 

  1. The Elo system models the result of a chess game as a continuous function, but an actual chess game can only have three results.
  2. As Elo goes up, it's becomes much harder to win a game than to draw one.
  3. There are fewer high Elo opponents than low Elo opponents.
  4. The high Elo players are trying not to lose Elo in individual games!

 

This is all true but contains no argument to support the idea that Glicko can be gamed by playing only higher rated opponents.

SFLovett
 

You can artificially inflate your rating by cheating... but then you're trapped and will have to keep cheating unless you finally decide that your rating isn't worth the cost of being able to play normal chess. Your rating will be artificially inflated if you join chess.com and claim to be at a level you're not at, but normal play will quickly take care of that. You can play only against opponents that are so high rated you have zero risk, but you can't do that often, or forever, and your rating blip will be temporary. 

yetanotheraoc
SFLovett wrote:
yetanotheraoc wrote:

 

  1. The Elo system models the result of a chess game as a continuous function, but an actual chess game can only have three results.
  2. As Elo goes up, it's becomes much harder to win a game than to draw one.
  3. There are fewer high Elo opponents than low Elo opponents.
  4. The high Elo players are trying not to lose Elo in individual games!

 

This is all true but contains no argument to support the idea that Glicko can be gamed by playing only higher rated opponents.

That's because you didn't quote my argument, which came _after_ my premises.

yetanotheraoc
SFLovett wrote:
yetanotheraoc wrote:

Well if I ever start playing rated chess here at chess.com (nah, won't happen, what am I saying?), then I will take @IronSteam1 suggestion and set the margins symmetrically like -100..+100 or similar. Because morally I agree with OP -- it's wrong to want to *only* play against stronger players.

It would be a moral question if it were true that it affects the ratings of other players, but it does not. If anyone wants to only play higher rated players, for the challenge maybe, they should do that. To each their own. But if they do it for the sake of their own rating, they're kidding themselves.

In the moral calculus we are not concerned with _changes_ in rating over time, but with the _difference_ in rating in a player's games. It's immoral to benefit from the experience of playing stronger players and then selfishly deny weaker players the same opportunity. "To each their own" fails Kant's categorical imperative.

Stronger player A gives player B a game. Player B does not give weaker player C a game because of rating. That's immoral. At the last OTB tournament I played in, an 1800 player actually said to me "I don't analyze with them after the game if my opponent is weaker than me." I said, "I hate players like you. Just imagine if all your opponents did the same thing to you." He agreed it would be a problem, and said he would think about it.

1g1yy
GraveMurky wrote:

The guy is in complete denial.   I I gave him many examples including Magnus vs Fabiano in the recent SCC match.  Magnus didn't gain any rating points  after the 5 and 3 min blitz portion even though he was up 10 games lol.  he only risked losing them lol.   He was over 3300 rating and fabi was just 3000.    I gave him my example of playing in tournaments in the Russian Lichess club I belong to where I am the so low rated that I don't lose points for a loss but I gain points for wins.  So its literally an automatic rating boost.   I always get at least one win sometimes more lol.

So long story short,   the fact you can choose your opponents rating in random games is absolutely fkn ludicrous and undermines the whole system which is designed to ensure competitive matches.  

Just Playing devil's advocate here, but if you feel this is so wrong, why do you belong to that club? Are you not doing precisely the thing you say is unethical? 

SFLovett
yetanotheraoc wrote:

 It's immoral to benefit from the experience of playing stronger players and then selfishly deny weaker players the same opportunity.

It isn't a moral question because it isn't true that you can get a higher rating by playing higher rated opponents. You'll get more points when you win but you'll win less often. The rating system takes account of ratings when it adds or subtracts from a player. That is its only function. The number of points you might have gained or lost by playing someone with an equal rating is adjusted according to a very precise formula.

1g1yy
GraveMurky wrote: 

Because it is a tournament.   So again,  a major difference.   People are not going into that tournament with the expectation of always being matched evenly in rating.     It is a tournament for all players of all levels in the club.    Sometimes there are tournament only for certain levels.     And it is by choice.  I can choose to play or not play the tournament.    In the general populartion people are choosing to play rated games with the expectation of being  properly matched by rating.    When I was using white pawn app for my eboard it would sometimes pit me with 2000s.   I stopped using it for these reasons.   Are you going to tell me next if I feel so strongly why am I even playing chess online?   lol.     Well the problem is in that regard I have no choice if I want to play chess online bud.  I've been hoping things change in e-sports for 30 years.  but chess.com is confirming for me that is a fantasy.   Society has not evolved enough yet to treat the digital world with the same principles we do in the physical realm.   We are still infants online in comparison.    It won't happen in my lifetime it seems.

Even if this is not directly felt by most players,  the fact the option is even known to exist puts a stain on the game.

I guess it still seems to me like there's a big contradiction. I probably wouldn't belong to a club that had so much disparity in ratings unless I had been invited into it, and even then I might be reluctant. I mean if I shared your opinion of this anyway.

No I don't question why you play chess online. It's virtually impossible to play in person in most locations on the planet. Unless you live in a big city you can pretty much forget it.

I have a similar disagreement with the allowing of databases in Daily. But I'm not going to be changing the world anytime soon. They're probably is no solution.