GraveMurky wrote:
Even more so when a community of players like you defend such acts.
Aww yeah, players "like me."
The filthy underbelly of the chess world... good thing you've uncovered the truth, and will share it with the world.
Leechers of chess.com
Sort:
GraveMurky wrote:
SFLovett wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
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.
I think we are arguing semantics here. I don't know the exact math but there is a point where it is extremely unfair.
You need to look up the word "semantics", and it's clear that you don't understand the math at all, let alone the 'exact' math..
Just remember that filthy underbelly of the internet, the anonymous smurfing like your favorite streamers do, is the main reason why online gaming will never be as respected or as popular as athletic sports. Erik doesn't realize that in 10 years nothing will change if that doesn't.
please explain one thing to me:
if higher rated players don't want to play lower ones, why not adjust match settings so they don't get paired with them?
Dec 17, 2022
0
#84
Why the face palm reaction?
200 points higher is roughly 75% chance of winning and 25% chance of losing. You also win (roughly) 5 points for a win and lose 15 for a loss.
So on average you win 75% * 5 = 3.75
And on average you lose 25% * 15 = 3.75
So on average you win nothing and lose nothing... which is obviously how the rating system has to work. When you perform exactly as well as your rating then your rating stays the same.
And since this is true for any rating, it means you risk the same no matter who you play.
Dec 17, 2022
0
#85
Now, in practice it doesn't work as intended for very large rating gaps (around 400 points) and chess.com rounds down to zero instead of awarding small fractions of a point meaning you do risk a non-zero amount when the gap is very large... but playing someone 200 points above (or below) you is not a problem.
Dec 17, 2022
0
#87
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
200 points higher is . . .
Your talking about a potential 400 point difference.
Classic coolout response.
Dec 17, 2022
0
#88
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
200 points higher is . . .
Your talking about a potential 400 point difference.
Classic coolout response.
So you think a 400 point difference is competitive!??! And Don't forget the rest of my post which you are conveniently ignoring. And Which you already admitted yourself in your previous post, is that such a difference would be an unequal risk and reward of points. lol.
"A 200 point difference is a noticeable difference of skill level, That is the rubicon we feel a difference when crossed and imo the spread should be limited to that. The goal of a rating system is to aid in matching competitively. Why undermine that, why even have a rating system at all if competitive matches are not the goal?"
How many games have you played where your opponent was more than 400 points higher/lower than you? Are you complaining about something from personal experience?
Dec 17, 2022
0
#89
There was one master who was doing some coaching for beginner kids, analyzing games. His rule was he'd stop looking at the game after 3 big mistakes, because that was already a lot for them to work on.
Anyway, you make such an effort for your first sentence to be wrong, why should I continue with the rest of the post? That's already enough for you to work on. After you fix that we can move on to the next thing if you want.
So let's try a 2nd time.
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
I said 200, not 400.
you think a 400 point difference is competitive!??!
I said 200, not 400.
Dec 17, 2022
0
#90
GraveMurky wrote:
BlueHen86 wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
200 points higher is . . .
Your talking about a potential 400 point difference.
Classic coolout response.
So you think a 400 point difference is competitive!??! And Don't forget the rest of my post which you are conveniently ignoring. And Which you already admitted yourself in your previous post, is that such a difference would be an unequal risk and reward of points. lol.
"A 200 point difference is a noticeable difference of skill level, That is the rubicon we feel a difference when crossed and imo the spread should be limited to that. The goal of a rating system is to aid in matching competitively. Why undermine that, why even have a rating system at all if competitive matches are not the goal?"
How many games have you played where your opponent was more than 400 points higher/lower than you? Are you complaining about something from personal experience?
Not exactly. I gave my personal experience of playing in club tournaments when I am the lowest retied player and how it is an automatic rating boost as an example of how the rating system works. This is why it needs to be regulated for the community as a whole. And whether by accident or not it seems it could happen to unsuspecting players. But I'm also simply against players purposely changing their settings to accomplish that in random rated matches. It should not be an option.
There is no setting on chess.com that allows a player to exclusively play against opponents who are so high rated that they wont lose rating points... that would be ridiculous.
Dec 17, 2022
0
#91
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
BlueHen86 wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
200 points higher is . . .
Your talking about a potential 400 point difference.
Classic coolout response.
So you think a 400 point difference is competitive!??! And Don't forget the rest of my post which you are conveniently ignoring. And Which you already admitted yourself in your previous post, is that such a difference would be an unequal risk and reward of points. lol.
"A 200 point difference is a noticeable difference of skill level, That is the rubicon we feel a difference when crossed and imo the spread should be limited to that. The goal of a rating system is to aid in matching competitively. Why undermine that, why even have a rating system at all if competitive matches are not the goal?"
How many games have you played where your opponent was more than 400 points higher/lower than you? Are you complaining about something from personal experience?
Not exactly. I gave my personal experience of playing in club tournaments when I am the lowest retied player and how it is an automatic rating boost as an example of how the rating system works. This is why it needs to be regulated for the community as a whole. And whether by accident or not it seems it could happen to unsuspecting players. But I'm also simply against players purposely changing their settings to accomplish that in random rated matches. It should not be an option.
There is no setting on chess.com that allows a player to exclusively play against opponents who are so high rated that they wont lose rating points... that would be ridiculous.
So you are denying it ever happens? It should never happen. If it does the system is flawed and needs correcting. Especially when it is due to a user changing their settings bud.
Ok, show me. Change your settings and gain 100 points on that account by playing 1200 rated players.
Dec 17, 2022
0
#92
GraveMurky wrote:
All I would have to do is play in a tournament way above my level. I already explained this multiple times, and no i'm not going to do that here. I do that only with my club on lichess and its once a week, and I don't play in it every week, and the rest of the week my rating goes back down.
Translation: my rating temporarily went up when I beat a higher rated player in a tournament, and then it went back down.
Yeah, that's not a flaw, that's normal "bud."
Dec 17, 2022
0
#93
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
All I would have to do is play in a tournament way above my level. I already explained this multiple times, and no i'm not going to do that here. I do that only with my club on lichess and its once a week, and I don't play in it every week, and the rest of the week my rating goes back down.
Translation: my rating temporarily went up when I beat a higher rated player in a tournament, and then it went back down.
Yeah, that's not a flaw, that's normal "bud."
Its something that only happens online. For example in that same Russian club I belong to. If I was to join them in their club in real life and play in one of their casual tournaments. They would only match me up with other noobs at my level. That is a huge difference. Because just like the OP is complaining here, so would the high rated members of that club. They go by actual FIDE equivalent Russian Federation ratings. But on their online lichess tournaments they don't have many actual titled players playing. Maybe an FM or CM sometimes. But no IM's no GM's, and mostly random internet people like me so its not taken as seriously.
And its not taken as seriously for the same reasons internet chess in general is not taken seriously. And this thread is one of the examples of why...
I think online long time controls are not taken seriously because of cheating and because it's very rare for a strong player (like a GM) to play anything faster than blitz. Put those two things together and it means all the high ratings are cheaters.
Chess.com hides this because several times in the past they boosted all the high rated player's rapid rating by 600 or more points... yes, that means there were GMs with 1900 rapid ratings (they couldn't go higher because of all the cheaters). And now all the top rapid ratings are GMs who don't even play rapid. This hides the ACTUAL top rapid players, who are 2400+ who are cheaters... and they get banned before being able to make to top 50... the top 50 which is full of players who don't even play rapid... it's a pretty big joke (at least to me).
Dec 17, 2022
0
#94
GraveMurky wrote:
First thing you did here is you made the mistake of thinking that OTB chess is only long time controls.
There's your bad habit again.
Dec 17, 2022
0
#95
GraveMurky wrote:
llama36 wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
First thing you did here is you made the mistake of thinking that OTB chess is only long time controls.
There's your bad habit again.
This is you conceding my point again. again time controls have nothing to do with the conversation. and not all titled players play classical all the time, nor do they prefer it bud. In fact the GM's are usually only playing blitz in the club. They are less likely to play the rapid lol. Much like super GM's on here are only playing bullet. Get with the times!
Here is the latest two uploads from the club. one vides is a 1000 vs 1000. another is two players 2200 vs 2300. Now they are matched up accordingly in real life because real players want a competitive match. If they were to play rated matches with the club online in a similar setting they might get randomly matched with each other. Big difference and something that will not be taken as seriously.
Also the main reason why in real life players don't want to play lower rated players besides the rating risk. Is the fact it will naturally lessen their chess skills. And lower player would not want the floor wiped with them by the higher rated player. Because it wouldn't even be practice lol.
You're as bad as a chat AI. You haven't read anything I've written.
Ok, moving on.
Hey, nice videos. I guess you're the cute one?
Dec 17, 2022
0
#98
That 2nd video is so tilting, just 5 seconds into it...
Also I'm sleepy and easily tilted I guess.
Dec 17, 2022
0
#99
GraveMurky wrote:
BlueHen86 wrote:
Much ado about nothing.
If you don't care about the site ensuring competitive matches that people subscribe to. Or if you don't care about the future popularity of online chess. Sure, its nothing...
I've been playing on this site for years. You've been here for 7 days.
Your complaints come across as trolling, but I'm happy to pad my post count.
Much ado about nothing.
Dec 17, 2022
0
#100
GraveMurky wrote:
BlueHen86 wrote:
GraveMurky wrote:
BlueHen86 wrote:
Much ado about nothing.
If you don't care about the site ensuring competitive matches that people subscribe to. Or if you don't care about the future popularity of online chess. Sure, its nothing...
I've been playing on this site for years. You've been here for 7 days.
Your complaints come across as trolling, but I'm happy to pad my post count.
Much ado about nothing.
you can consider it trolling. But to me chess is just another sport, another video game community. And I've been trolling e-sports in general with the same complaints for almost 30 years. The only thing different about chess.com, is they publicly make exceptions for these things. Which is historic in itself.
30 years of trolling. Something to be proud of. If only you had dedicated that time to studying chess.
Erik thinks in 10 years chess is going to be shown on TV like other sports? Not when general society realizes this is the type of community he built
Ah yes, all those skeletons.
But intrepid investigative reporter coolie is going to blow the case WIDE OPEN.