You'll be a a 1200 rated player when you tend to beat players rated below 1200 and lose to players rated above 1200.
Severe disconnect between my rating and my actual skill level.
jackchilders wrote:
You'll be a a 1200 rated player when you tend to beat players rated below 1200 and lose to players rated above 1200.
No... Because what happens is I usually get more elo for a win than I lose for a loss. For example when I lose a game I usually lose 4 - 7 points, but when I win I usually get 8 - 12 points. So even when you're losing more than 50% of your games like I am, the website still keeps you at the same elo...
My elo just doesn't go down far enough.
ALXNDR89 wrote:
jackchilders wrote:
You'll be a a 1200 rated player when you tend to beat players rated below 1200 and lose to players rated above 1200.
No... Because what happens is I usually get more elo for a win than I lose for a loss. For example when I lose a game I usually lose 4 - 7 points, but when I win I usually get 8 - 12 points. So even when you're losing more than 50% of your games like I am, the website still keeps you at the same elo...
My elo just doesn't go down far enough.
How much you win or lose is dependent on the ratings and respective rating deviations of players. If you are gaining more points on wins, than you are losing on losses, that you are likely have a higher average opponent rating, one over your current rating.
Ratings are really only useful within the pool you play in, so, if you have a sufficient number of games here in a pool, the ratings are accurate in that pool and reflect your past performance in that pool.
I think it's best to focus on getting better, and let the rating thing work itself out. Playing stronger opponents is the best way to improve, so having a high rating relative to your skill level isn't a bad thing in the long run.
For that position, Rxh4 is the best move. I wouldn't give this to an 800, they wouldn't solve this. This is more like a 1300 puzzle, I'm a 1600 on chess.com and I spend 1 minute thinking.
*spent
CupEnd wrote:
For that position, Rxh4 is the best move. I wouldn't give this to an 800, they wouldn't solve this. This is more like a 1300 puzzle, I'm a 1600 on chess.com and I spend 1 minute thinking.
Quite funny, as I saw it pretty quickly. However, I did watch a game last night dealing with a similar position, so that may have helped.
Dsmith42 wrote:
I think it's best to focus on getting better, and let the rating thing work itself out. Playing stronger opponents is the best way to improve, so having a high rating relative to your skill level isn't a bad thing in the long run.
Sure but it's demoralising to get dominated 60% of the time... I play chess because it's fun but the fun is mostly in the winning. At least for me. I don't mind losing but I would like to at least have a 50% win rate.
lichess and this site differ by a few hundred points for whatever reason. Lag is a MAJOR factor so keep that in mind. It can either boost your score or constrict it (on both sites).
ALXNDR89 wrote:
jackchilders wrote:
You'll be a a 1200 rated player when you tend to beat players rated below 1200 and lose to players rated above 1200.
No... Because what happens is I usually get more elo for a win than I lose for a loss. For example when I lose a game I usually lose 4 - 7 points, but when I win I usually get 8 - 12 points. So even when you're losing more than 50% of your games like I am, the website still keeps you at the same elo...
My elo just doesn't go down far enough.
I'm not sure if you really don't understand how ratings work, but on the chance you really don't:
https://support.chess.com/article/210-how-do-ratings-work-on-chess-com
Don’t give up!
Humble brag.
Yeah it is a semi interesting way to point out that most people think they are underrated.
I saw it immediately, but I'm still not good at chess. I've just done too many puzzles I guess lol.
ALXNDR89 wrote:
I've played over 1000 games on chess.com and play at the 800 level on a good day. The site starts you at 1000 and then I tanked to 500 only to slowly rise and fall with my plateau being 800. On Chess.com I think players generally play at a higher level than their rating suggests, not sure how that helps or relates to other sites. I couldn't find the best move in the time I wanted to spend on the puzzle so I don't think it is 800 level. Like others are saying you should just keep playing and either you will get better to represent your rating or you will lose more rating points and eventually your skill will reflect your rating. Hope this helps. Always down to play some unrated games if you want to see how good/bad 800 really is...
What time controls do you play? It sounds like you have a consistency issue.
ALXNDR89 wrote:
I am 1500 rated chess.com and 1850 rated on lichess yet it feels like my actual skill level is of a player around about the ~700 rating mark. I often hang pieces, I often blunder mate in 1 and I often miss the most rudimentary of tactics. This causes me to lose 60% of my games so even though I'm being matched against equally rated opponents, there's a severe disconnect between the strength the website ranks me at, as my actual real life skill level.
When are chess websites going to start rating me appropriately? I am not a 1500 rated player, I am a 1200 rated player, maybe 1300 when I'm playing my best. I'm thinking to just sandbag my elo on purpose because the rating system chess websites use just isn't legit.
For context, just played a rapid game with this position Black to play.
I spent about 2 minutes during the game searching for a win and couldn't find it, ended up trading off a bunch of pieces and lost the game. After analysing the game I saw the engine eval said I was completely winning so again I spend another 3 or 4 minutes looking and I just couldn't see the move.
It's like I suddenly became braindead or something... After seeing the solution, it's obvious this is probably a tactic suitable for 800 rated players, so why couldn't I find it if I'm rated 1500?
That position and the tactic there is definitely NOT 800 level. That is for sure a 1700+ tactic. Let me explain why it's a 1700+ tactic
If you go deep in that position then u will realize why im saying this. Rxh4 is what everyone sees because the pawn can't take because of Qxh2 mate. However white does not NEED to take the rook. What if white plays Bd6 which attacks the queen and forces it off from that diagonal? Keep in mind that if the queen moves from the diagonal then white can take that rook. So what do you do now as black? if you move the queen then gxh4 and black is not "winning" anymore. One move which people might see is Rh1+ after Bd6 because if Kxh1 then Qh5+ followed by mate. However, again white doesn't NEED to take the rook, white can play Kg2 and now both your rook and your queen is attacked. Now there are only two "winning" moves, Rh2+ which forces the king back so that u can move your queen to h5(getting out of attack by the bishop on d6). Either that or you must see Qf5 which leads to checkmate in 7 moves(not so obvious). Keep in mind you would have to see all of this before playing Rxh4
Do you see what i mean? maybe i am overevaluating the tactic but i am very very sure that it's atleast higher than a 1700 rated tactic. You basically have to evaluate this variation in your head
Rxh4 Bd6(or Bd4) Rh1+ Kg2 Rh2+ Kg1 Qh5 and this will lead to mate. This is just the "winning" continuation. People might also give up the rook after Bd6 (say Qh5 after Bd6) and might think that the king is wide open with knight and queen near it so it will lead to mate, however a sneaky bishop move will defend everything. I had to look very deep into this so as to find the absolute winning move.
Not to mention there are other good looking moves like Nxf2 and something(Kxf2 is basically forced after Nxf2)
So basically before playing Rxh4 you would have to see Bd6 attacking the diagonal and forcing the queen off... then u would absolutely have to see that you can play Rh1+ because if Kxh1 then Qh5 after that leads to a mate in 2. However you would have to also know how to respond after Kg2 which simultaneously attacks both your rook and your queen and you can't even play Qh5 due to simple Rxh1. ALL of this is very risky since you are "hanging" material in every single line except the winning continuation.
CupEnd wrote:
For that position, Rxh4 is the best move. I wouldn't give this to an 800, they wouldn't solve this. This is more like a 1300 puzzle, I'm a 1600 on chess.com and I spend 1 minute thinking.
I would rate this puzzle a lot higher. I have explained why in a previous comment.
TerminatorC800 wrote:
CupEnd wrote:
For that position, Rxh4 is the best move. I wouldn't give this to an 800, they wouldn't solve this. This is more like a 1300 puzzle, I'm a 1600 on chess.com and I spend 1 minute thinking.
Quite funny, as I saw it pretty quickly. However, I did watch a game last night dealing with a similar position, so that may have helped.
Did you see all the important replies? Rxh4 is fine if you see what to do after Bd6. Just Rxh4 doesn't win unless you see the only winning continuation after Bd6
ALXNDR89 wrote:
I am 1500 rated chess.com and 1850 rated on lichess yet it feels like my actual skill level is of a player around about the ~700 rating mark. I often hang pieces, I often blunder mate in 1 and I often miss the most rudimentary of tactics. This causes me to lose 60% of my games so even though I'm being matched against equally rated opponents, there's a severe disconnect between the strength the website ranks me at, as my actual real life skill level.
When are chess websites going to start rating me appropriately? I am not a 1500 rated player, I am a 1200 rated player, maybe 1300 when I'm playing my best. I'm thinking to just sandbag my elo on purpose because the rating system chess websites use just isn't legit.
For context, just played a rapid game with this position Black to play.
I spent about 2 minutes during the game searching for a win and couldn't find it, ended up trading off a bunch of pieces and lost the game. After analysing the game I saw the engine eval said I was completely winning so again I spend another 3 or 4 minutes looking and I just couldn't see the move.
It's like I suddenly became braindead or something... After seeing the solution, it's obvious this is probably a tactic suitable for 800 rated players, so why couldn't I find it if I'm rated 1500?
You won 12 of your last 20 games as of the time of my post, so it seems right now your win rate is currently doing better than 50% for your recent chess. 60% recent win rate.
1400s are not immune to blundering, even to seemingly basic mistakes.
I am 1500 rated chess.com and 1850 rated on another site yet it feels like my actual skill level is of a player around about the ~700 rating mark. I often hang pieces, I often blunder mate in 1 and I often miss the most rudimentary of tactics. This causes me to lose 60% of my games so even though I'm being matched against equally rated opponents, there's a severe disconnect between the strength the website ranks me at, as my actual real life skill level.
When are chess websites going to start rating me appropriately? I am not a 1500 rated player, I am a 1200 rated player, maybe 1300 when I'm playing my best. I'm thinking to just sandbag my elo on purpose because the rating system chess websites use just isn't legit.
For context, just played a rapid game with this position Black to play.