Man, I can't believe how my chess has improved over the past week or so. I added 73 points to my rating over an 8-day span and blasted into new territory for me for a personal high that eclipsed my previous high by more than 50 points. And I'll gladly share my secret to (bogus) chess success with you for a mere $19.95!
Oh, OK, I'll share my secret for free. From December 26 through January 2 I had 11 CC games "finish". Before this streak my rating was 1743. My rating after each valiant victory is in parentheses.
Voila! Here I am, temporarily slotted into the 1801-2000 tier for the next chess.com tournament, where I'd get my butt kicked big-time, of course.
And that's Cystem's system for an excellent bogus increase of more than 70 rating points in 8 days!
A good system, Cystem. Sound more like the chess.com glicko cystem phailure, err I mean system failure.
Forward this to Magnus Carlsen, he could use another 70 points.
Happy new year to you, too echecs. I'm guessing you're looking forward to something to celebrate late next Monday (the 9th).
Ok, now pay up. They're done dirt cheap not free
It was (-9.9) F here a couple hours ago. All the dirt is frozen solid.
It is nice to hear some random acts of bad behavior can turn out to be random acts of kindness. Thanks for for sharing the story, Cystem_Phailure.
From my point of view the meaning of your experience is: Participation counts. "Being there", according to some is 80% of success.
I wish that were true in my classes.
Does your rating go down less if you lose to someone on time rather than CM/Resignation? I accidently timed out against a 1400 opponent, and only went down about 25ish points from 2060, was expecting a higher 'punishment'. I'd like the answer to be 'yes', but I can see how this could be easily manipulated.
This streak of non-games was a fluke, to be sure, and the rating rise is sort of funny albeit meaningless in terms of reflecting ability. But of course I'd rather have played the games (except maybe the 4 against the guy who got booted for cheating)-- that's why I signed up for them in the first place.
I've never been very concerned about my rating, although having an artificially high one will change things for the next little bit because I play essentially only tournaments and team matches (of my last 125 games only 2 weren't in a tournament or team match), and my rating determines what I'm eligible to enter and who I get matched up against. I'll probably end up a bit overmatched in my next 2 or 3 events until I've lost enough games to get me back to a realistic rating value.
And then people will look at my high rating mark and accuse me of sandbagging.
Kudos to MSU for beating UGA!
That was a long time coming-- MSU's first bowl win since 2001 (snaps a 5-bowl losing streak). We'll see how Michigan does tonight against Virginia Tech.
I always track how the teams from the Great Lakes States (GLS) do in bowls and in the March Madness tourney. This year there are 14 bowl games with a GLS team (plus another bowl with 2 GLS teams pitted against one another). With 11 of those played so far the GLS teams are 6-5, and 3 games to go (Michigan, Pittsburgh, and Northern Illinois remaining).
Does your rating go down less if you lose to someone on time rather than CM/Resignation?
No. A loss is a loss, for rating purposes. You can look in the "details" tab and click "rating adjustment" for an ongoing game and the rating changes it shows will apply regardless of the method of game termination.
way to go!
I'm a bit lost as to why your rating went up when you won with 0 moves. As the example shows, my rating went nowhere when I "won" my most recent two games on time. These were rated tournament games.
I thought there needed to be a minimum number of moves for the game to be rated.
I don't know. I remember something somewhere about a minimum number of moves for a game to be recorded as a win/loss rather than aborted, but that doesn't apply to games in tourneys and matches since they have to have an outcome. I thought all (rated) games that were recorded as either a win or a loss instead of aborted always affected the rating.
I see that all of my games with 4 or fewer moves were resignations, not timeouts, but that shouldn't make any difference.
Opponent C, the only one of the 5 opponents (in post #1) who had only timed out in one game against me, got his act together and today timed out in his other game. He actually came back after the first game timed out and made a move to start off the second game, only to then let it time out after 1 move. That brings my streak up to 12 bogus wins, though this one didn't have an accompanying rating change.
well it couldn't have happened to a nicer, frozen dude. Here's hoping it's just a boost to a very long upward streak of winning. (long glug glug follows here...)
my point is not changing any more,whats the problem...