Personally,:
-i always watch my rating fluctuation
-i don't get so worry to get my rating higher
-i always have in mind to try improving my rating but->
-i am being patient and ->
i don't feel that rating is characterizes my chess behavior or my potential..
Does anyone know whether it is better for your rating to play players whose ratings are higher than yours or lower or does it all come out in the wash?
Does anyone know whether it is better for your rating to play players whose ratings are higher than yours or lower or does it all come out in the wash?
The common advice is for learning purposes it's best to select opponents who beat you most of the time (but not all the time). So not more than 200-300 points above you. That way you're punished for your mistakes without facing an opponent whoes play is so far beyond you that you can't tell which moves were mistakes or not :)
As much as I would like to say that my rating is irrelevant and its all about improvement and the joy of the game, that is a lie. No matter what, the rating a sort of measure (even though a very crude one) of ability. If anyone knows how to ignore the rating and focus on the game, do let me know :p
As much as I would like to say that my rating is irrelevant and its all about improvement and the joy of the game, that is a lie. No matter what, the rating a sort of measure (even though a very crude one) of ability. If anyone knows how to ignore the rating and focus on the game, do let me know :p
I wonder,in a sample of 20 players, how many of them agree with the above statement and how many disagree.I agree.So, far is 2 votes over.
If, for example, you win a game, earn some rating points due to it, but find out later in the analysis, that the game was full of errors, just your opponent made more than you. Can you really enjoy your earned rating points ? I can't. So I vote against.
Actually, I see no progress over time, I just realize more and more how bad I really play.
If, for example, you win a game, earn some rating points due to it, but find out later in the analysis, that the game was full of errors, just your opponent made more than you. Can you really enjoy your earned rating points ? I can't. So I vote against.
Actually, I see no progress over time, I just realize more and more how bad I really play.
Even though i agree with you,i still feel that rating is affecting my behavior even if i don't want it.
So far:
2 votes for
1 vote against
If, for example, you win a game, earn some rating points due to it, but find out later in the analysis, that the game was full of errors, just your opponent made more than you. Can you really enjoy your earned rating points ? I can't. So I vote against.
Actually, I see no progress over time, I just realize more and more how bad I really play.
Even though i agree with you,i still feel that rating is affecting my behavior even if i don't want it.
No matter what, the rating a sort of measure (even though a very crude one) of ability. If anyone knows how to ignore the rating and focus on the game, do let me know :p
I wonder,in a sample of 20 players, how many of them agree with the above statement and how many disagree.I agree.So, far is 2 votes over.
So far:
2 votes for
1 vote against
I think chess is a lot like language acquisition in a way.
You start off knowing nothing.
Then you learn a bit, and you have a tonne of confidence, as you are able to use the language when before you could not. Your new skills make you feel like you really know what you are doing.
Soon, you learn enough to realise that in fact, what you were previously doing was full of mistakes. In this phase, you lose alot of confidence despite the fact that ability is increasing. Alot of people will give up at this point. I think this is the main plateau point for both chess and language. I'm fighting to get out of this phase.
Then comes the hard yards. You must immerse yourself in the environment. You learn from mistakes (often brutally) and your ability increases further, until you are very proficient.
Finally, comes the hardest yards of all. You are at a point where you know the language/game well. But the nuances (of which there are thosands and of almost limitless types) are lost on you. This is what seperates the fluent from the very very good. Years of immersion and dedicated study are required to master it.
The ELO and Glicko based systems put at risk a sizable chunk of your rating in each game. If you have a short-term run of losses, your rating can drop a lot. Does this reflect your ability? Probably in the long-term, some sort of averaging will show your ability, but your rating at any given point in time may not. Glicko is better than straight ELO in this regard, but it's hardly perfect. (I think RD values decrease too slowly and have too high a floor, but that's another discussion.)
In my own case, I'm a low ranker, and that's with good reason; I am simply not that good a player, although I immensely enjoy playing. So what does my rating do for me? When it drops, I realize I need to focus better. When it rises, I need to be careful not to lose focus. But other than that, it's only a number.
The only practical impact is in the lack of ability to get games with high-rated players. No one with a high ranking will play me voluntarily (not that I blame them). So in addition to signing up for tournaments in my rating range, I enter some open tournaments and sometimes get games with high-rankers.
Indeed,the main plateau of chess levels
So what does my rating do for me? When it drops, I realize I need to focus better. When it rises, I need to be careful not to lose focus. But other than that, it's only a number.
Does that mean that as you get higher you need more and more focus on your games?I think this is wrong because if you really deserve to be in that level then you have the appropriate knowledge and experience to stay on that level.Of course i get what you want to say but i am not sure if this is realistic..
For.
I know it's an arbitrary number, but when I play well, it moves up, and vice-versa. It gives me feedback. I can see a result of my efforts to improve. In that way I think it's helpful, but as a gauge of anyone's chess ability? Only a rough one.
No matter what, the rating a sort of measure (even though a very crude one) of ability. If anyone knows how to ignore the rating and focus on the game, do let me know :p
I wonder,in a sample of 20 players, how many of them agree with the above statement and how many disagree.I agree.So, far is 2 votes over.
KalunaDarlin wrote:
"For.
I know it's an arbitrary number, but when I play well, it moves up, and vice-versa. It gives me feedback. I can see a result of my efforts to improve. In that way I think it's helpful, but as a gauge of anyone's chess ability? Only a rough one. "
So far:
3 votes for
1 vote against
I am very happy that i get a lot of answers from "middle-raters".Thanks for the very useful feedback!
So what does my rating do for me? When it drops, I realize I need to focus better. When it rises, I need to be careful not to lose focus. But other than that, it's only a number.
Does that mean that as you get higher you need more and more focus on your games?I think this is wrong because if you really deserve to be in that level then you have the appropriate knowledge and experience to stay on that level.Of course i get what you want to say but i am not sure if this is realistic..
What I meant to say is that when my rating is on the upswing, that means I'm doing well and focusing, and I have to pay attention to keep from dropping back again. I find that when I lose focus (the classic for me is playing too fast, playing on the bus, etc.) I make more bad moves and my rating drops back. This may be just a peculiarity of my own style; my rating fluctuates a lot!
It is a means to measure ability which means I can easily track my improvment and find appropriate opponents. It is a very useful thing.
Fide rating is what it counts for me. That's where serious chess takes place. On the other hand online rating means nothing and I mean it.
Let me attest. How many times did you come across cheaters (excuse me if I can use that term) online? If its 3 mins or above, I always smell something. Also, do you think that a person having broadband connection from developed nations can fairly compare his developing counterparts in bullets?
For example, I mean if I am from US or European nations that means in bullet I am awarded atleast 100 rating points free (despite actual chess skills) against fellow equal chess players from developing nations due to better server, connection, hardware configuration, irregular point cut, you say it.
In bullet even a small factor like mouse matters.
How much importance do you give to ratings?
How much--> to your FIDE(or any other official) rating you give?
How much--> to your chess.com ratings(or in any other website)?
How -->is rating affecting your general chess goals,long-term and short-term?
Do you change your goals or your behavior in order to improve your rating?
How high do you target to get your rating?How "higher" do you see yourself in 5 years according to your rating?