Totally off topic, but if you aren't a Beta member, you might want to consider it. The new and improved Game Review is very nice, and playing against bots has suddenly taken on a whole new meaning (I hardly ever play bots, but I played about ten games with them today).
I've only got an old gold membership so maybe I won't be qualified. How do you even do it?
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
Well, I deleted this blog because it was misleading, and I found a rounding error that accounted for some of the results.
You can get a small boost to your rating if you only play a certain kind of opponent... but it's such a small boost (like, 10 points at most) and it's hard to explain (better to change your settings after every few games) AND the answer isn't either higher or lower, it's more complicated (lol).
So... not worth a long blog to explain all these details when the answer is it doesn't really matter in the end... but the bottom line is it's best to play opponents who are about 100-200 points higher than you, and the boost is worth ~5 points over baseline (lol).
---
In the end, these are the results I came up with... I don't know why they aren't symmetrical. I tried the things I could think of and now I'm done with it. I suspect the numbers for lower rated opponents are an artifact of some rounding stuff, but I don't want to spend more hours on this. (Averaging over 10s of millions of games, using the actual Elo formula, which I checked vs chess.com games and ratings and verified to be a reliable estimate).
Just to stay on topic, from these two detractors. But another major difference we must realize between a tournament and queuing for random rated matches, IS that the purpose of a rating is to match people for the most competitive match. But the purpose of a tournament is to rank people. They are separate things.
The OP has said she treats this game like a sport. Its evident the two people above me clearly do not.
@125, thanks I'll check it out.
There's now been multiple times that you've said this and obviously you must be looking for a response. I actually typed one this morning but the site wiped it out and I really didn't care enough to retype anything.
As to me not being competitive, I'm probably one of the more obsessive people that you've ever come across. In my younger days I was willing to put lots of effort into competitive activities that had no return on investment. I just don't do that anymore. If I put in a huge amount of effort, it will be in my business or on one of my investment properties. It will not be in chess. I like to do things well, but I'm also a realist. I will make $0 playing chess. Exactly how much concern should I place on that activity then?
I went to my first tournament in around 40 years and I won the Under 1400 section while rated about 1100 online. I won enough money to pay approximately 1/3 of the cost of fuel to go there. Never mind the total cost of ownership of the vehicle. Now let's say I would like to improve my financial situation with my Recreation time activities. I'm better off asking my neighbor if he will give me $20 to mow his grass. At least with that I will net some money and it's a guaranteed thing. From what I have heard top players say, being in the top 10 in the world doesn't even make you a 1% earner in the United States. Seems like a lot of effort for not much return. And for the record, I won't be mowing the neighbor's grass anytime soon.
The fact that some of us do not agree with you that this rating selection is some existential threat to chess has nothing to do with competitiveness. And if you are so competitive, why aren't you a higher rated player? In my mind, competitiveness means you try to improve continuously and quickly.
@llama36
It stands to reason that by now they've come up with ways to make sure nobody can exploit the rating system, at least not to any meaningful amount. It's understandable that the math would have been kept simple back in the pre-computer era. But now that they have computers to do whatever math they want, it doesn't need to be so simple anymore.
@llama36
It stands to reason that by now they've come up with ways to make sure nobody can exploit the rating system, at least not to any meaningful amount. It's understandable that the math would have been kept simple back in the pre-computer era. But now that they have computers to do whatever math they want, it doesn't need to be so simple anymore.
The best mathematical trick to get a higher rating that I found is... play more games 
Which is kinda obvious. If you flip a coin 1000 times you'll probably get a few amazing runs of heads or tails... but if you flip a coin one hundred millions times, well, you'll get something even more amazing.
There are so many other factors that are so much more meaningful... like @ironsteam1 mentions psychology, and the thing I like to focus on is physical aspects (playing when I've slept and ate enough during that day).
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
Well, I deleted this blog because it was misleading, and I found a rounding error that accounted for some of the results.
You can get a small boost to your rating if you only play a certain kind of opponent... but it's such a small boost (like, 10 points at most) and it's hard to explain (better to change your settings after every few games) AND the answer isn't either higher or lower, it's more complicated (lol).
So... not worth a long blog to explain all these details when the answer is it doesn't really matter in the end... but the bottom line is it's best to play opponents who are about 100-200 points higher than you, and the boost is worth ~5 points over baseline (lol).
That's good to hear. I don't need to be right all the time (a good thing since I'm not) but there are some ideas that I don't like and one of them is that Glicko doesn't actually work. Chess is at least somewhat more fun because the games are rated and you want the ratings to be as accurate as possible, of course. Regarding my own rating, I'm still the king of blunders, but I like the game and I'm getting better, not that anyone should care.
IDK, Glicko seems pretty freaking amazing sometimes.
In the resent Carlsen / Caruana speed chess championship match on chess.com, they played (IIRC) 16 blitz games... at the end of those 16 games their ratings were the exact same numbers as before the match, meaning the rating system perfectly predicted the results... can't get better than perfect!
import random
# Keeps track of players and their stats. You can add elements like best win, average rating, etc.
class Player:
number_of_players = 0
def __init__(self, skill, rating):
self.rating = rating
self.skill = skill
self.game_history = []
Player.number_of_players += 1
# This function changes two player's rating and game history. It decides who wins by using the Elo formula.
def play_game(player1, player2):
player1_wins = False
#real outcome is based on the player's skill
real_outcome = 1/(1+10 ** ((player2.skill - player1.skill)/400))
real_outcome = (real_outcome * 100)
#expected outsome is based on the player's rating
expected_outcome = 1/(1+10 ** ((player2.rating - player1.rating)/400))
expected_outcome = (expected_outcome * 100) #multiply by 100, see note 1 below
if(real_outcome >= random.randint(1, 100)):
player1_wins = True
print("Player one wins!")
#The result of a game updates the rating, but never the skill
if(player1_wins == True):
player1.rating += (((100 - expected_outcome) / 5)) #divide by 5, see note 1 below.
player2.rating -= (((100 - expected_outcome) / 5))
#Keeps track of wins and losses as 1 and -1
player1.game_history.append(1)
player2.game_history.append(-1)
elif(player1_wins == False):
player1.rating -= ((expected_outcome / 5))
player2.rating += ((expected_outcome / 5))
player1.game_history.append(-1)
player2.game_history.append(1)
print("Player one lost!")
# End of function
# note 1: multiple by 100 (line 26) and divide by 5 (line 34) is the same as multiply by 20. Thus the K factor here is 20.
player_list = []
player_list.append(Player(1200, 1200)) #Adds a new player. Player 0 is rated 1200 and has a skill of 1200
player_list.append(Player(1400, 1400)) #Adds a new player. Player 1 is rated 1400 and has a skill of 1400
play_game(player_list[0], player_list[1])
print("The player's new rating is " + str(int(player_list[0].rating)) + ".")
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.
You keep disagreeing with the part of my post that you didn't quote. I already said, it is not about the change in rating. Let me repeat: I don't care about it. I don't care if playing up gives a player a boost of +10 Elo, +5 Elo, or +0 Elo. Whether it did or didn't is not what I am basing my _immoral_ charge on.
But you seem to be quite hung up on whether or not a rating system is accurate, and can't let it go.
Chess ratings are fundamentally immoral. When chess players arrange a rated match, they are taking part in a zero-sum game, which encourages aggression and trickery instead of cooperation. The unfairness of our economic system is then symbolically reproduced here, reminding us of the pervasive logic of capitalism and slowly making us believe in its inevitability.
However, chess could be different. It can be reformed, brought back to a purer state. We have to free our minds from the greed of elo that burns our souls. As long as we keep feeding that fire, there will be suffering, despair and sorrow. Be wary of the evil hidden behind ratings, divest yourself from the passion they inspire in your heart, and you will become free.
You too can join our movement, OP. Leechers are not our enemy, ratings are to blame. Reject Glicko. Embrace unrated games.
-100 to +100 should be the default setting implemented by the site
Nah, that's a little too boring. It's fun to play someone +200 or higher now and then. If you only play +/- 100 you probably wouldn't improve as quickly either, since you're not exposed to people much better than you.
-100 to +100 should be the default setting implemented by the site
Nah, that's a little too boring. It's fun to play someone +200 or higher now and then. If you only play +/- 100 you probably wouldn't improve as quickly either, since you're not exposed to people much better than you.
This is just another form of rating maniuplation.
Incorrect.
35 k banned for cheating for the month of November. That is an EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT, EXTRAORDINARY!!!
35 thousand out of more than 20 MILLION active users
0.175%
1 in 571
None of those 35,000 accounts were banned for manipulating ratings
Incorrect (again).
-100 to +100 should be the default setting implemented by the site
Nah, that's a little too boring. It's fun to play someone +200 or higher now and then. If you only play +/- 100 you probably wouldn't improve as quickly either, since you're not exposed to people much better than you.
This is just another form of rating maniuplation.
Incorrect.
You seem to not really understand how the rating system works.
Playing someone rated 200 points above or below you is not rating manipulation.
35 k banned for cheating for the month of November. That is an EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT, EXTRAORDINARY!!!
35 thousand out of more than 20 MILLION active users
0.175%
1 in 571
None of those 35,000 accounts were banned for manipulating ratings
Incorrect (again).
Why would they be banning 2nd accounts in rated matches
For lots of reasons.
For example if the user didn't ok it with chess.com first, or if the accounts played against each other.
-100 to +100 should be the default setting implemented by the site
Nah, that's a little too boring. It's fun to play someone +200 or higher now and then. If you only play +/- 100 you probably wouldn't improve as quickly either, since you're not exposed to people much better than you.
This is just another form of rating maniuplation.
Incorrect.
You seem to not really understand how the rating system works.
Playing someone rated 200 points above or below you is not rating manipulation.
when you are playing someone 200 points above you and the other player has no option to reject the game without being penalized. that is unfair to them, period.
Incorrect.
35 k banned for cheating for the month of November. That is an EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT, EXTRAORDINARY!!!
35 thousand out of more than 20 MILLION active users
0.175%
1 in 571
None of those 35,000 accounts were banned for manipulating ratings
Incorrect (again).
Why would they be banning 2nd accounts in rated matches
For lots of reasons.
For example if the user didn't ok it with chess.com first, or if the accounts played against each other.
And what about all those 2nd accounts they turn a blind eye too and make exceptions for? How many thousands are those? lol
That's not germane because your statement is incorrect either way.
-100 to +100 should be the default setting implemented by the site
Nah, that's a little too boring. It's fun to play someone +200 or higher now and then. If you only play +/- 100 you probably wouldn't improve as quickly either, since you're not exposed to people much better than you.
This is just another form of rating maniuplation.
Incorrect.
You seem to not really understand how the rating system works.
Playing someone rated 200 points above or below you is not rating manipulation.
when you are playing someone 200 points above you and the other player has no option to reject the game without being penalized. that is unfair to them, period.
Incorrect.
Absolutely not incorrect, because again they are risking much more rating points then the lower rated player. Hardly fair. Yiou might just be playing to "have fun" others might be more competitive then you. You should learn not to be so selfish.
There is exactly as much risk as playing an equally rated player as there is playing someone rated 200 points above you... and that can be shown mathematically.
This is the club I play in on the Lichess. I became a fan on youtube. one of the channels that got me into chess. Look at this rating disparity! hahaha Mother and Daughter here. Vice President of the club and its star. This little girl CFN_Pinkamena is like 1950 on lichess. 10 yr old. Her older sister CFN_Fatality 15 yr old is 2500, 1900 FIDE. I played against her older sister a couple weeks ago and boy I at least made her wipe her forehead after the match. She gained no rating points for beating me I lost no points. But boy if I beat her I would of taken a huge chunk out of her rating lmao. They play 3+2 mostly and I got her down to seconds on the clock lol and I resigned. I think she said something in Russian that I should have no resigned. I never beat either of them. I have beat a 2400 before though. checkmate. He left the tournament right after. hehe.
Pretty cool.