Some players on this site are way too good/bad for their rating.

Before I begin I would like to say that overall, this site is great - impressive features, nice aesthetics, it's all really good. But I have a constructive criticism that I would like to make.

 

It's getting to the point now where it isn't fun to play on this site most of the time. I can't always enjoy it because no-one seems to play at the level their rating suggests. I generally hover around the 1700-1900 level, but I usually feel like I'm always playing someone either 1500 or 2100 despite only challenging members within 50 points of my rating.

 

I play on other chess websites, and this one seems the most unbalanced. This is why I don't play on this site very much for that reason, despite how good the site is otherwise. I sometimes go weeks or even months without visiting, which only increases the problem because that causes my rating to jump about even more!

 

Thoughts?

Just don't take it too seriously. It's only online, and the ratings don't matter as much as if it was OTB. Just play and have fun!

But that's the problem - I'm not having fun. What's the point of playing at all if I'm not going to take it seriously? I want to get better!

 

It's an elitist site with an unbalanced rating system. I struggle to beat anyone most of the time - it doesn't matter what type of game. I thought I was a good player, but I guess I'm not.

I will tell you what it is. you play on a site that starts by 1500 so the rating is automatically higher your around 1900 fine. than you come here and you can't beat 1700 players... you struggle at it. you thought your better.... and its simple its just different ratings and more accurate ones. hope this helps.

U play people around ur level, u blunder and u don’t realise it, you think u have been crushed. In reality both you and your opponent made blunders and he caught u out in the end. Also 1500 isn’t very good. I’ve been up to 1850 blitz, and 1850 is still pretty pathetic, this site is very accurate when compared to Elo in 3 minute blitz ratings, ur not playing anyone over or underrated by more than 50 to 100 points, 600 points is simply ridiculous.

I look at it this way.  I enjoy the game of chess, i enjoy playing online, i enjoy the benefit of having a diamond membership so i can access all the study materials,  I enjoy meeting the few people that actually take the time to "interact", I enjoy helping out, I enjoy the site.  What i will not do, is allow an online rating to interfere with that.  

The rating of a player directly represents his ability to win games. If a player rated 1700 actually had the skill of a 2100 rated player he would get to 2100 in little to no time. I think what you're missing is that humans naturally are inconsistent and unpredictable. A player can have a good game and look like 300 points over his rating then in the next game the opposite would happen. Just play a guy with the same rating as yours 30 times in a row and you'll realise you win 50%, even though he looks terrible in some of the games. I really don't feel this site is more unbalanced than the others in that regard, and I also can hardly see a way that would create such a situation.

Looks like you win more than half your games to me and your ratings are in the top 10% of the site (maybe better I didn’t look to hard). So basically I think you should fk off with your bs.

That wasn't my argument. I know that I win games, my argument is that I don't believe that ratings on this site are accurate whatsoever. I'm not trying to say any BS at all.

If I am wrong, fine. I'm not trying to annoy anyone, I just needed to get a nagging problem I have with this site off my chest.

Fabian0Marijuana’s Response was excellent. Recently, I set it so that only people 25 under, and I think 200 over, could play me. I have had the best time ever playing lately I think as a result of that. I lose and win about half and half on average. Before I did that, I often played people a couple hundred points lower who were far better than their rating. One way to find out is by looking at their profile; you can see how high someone has been rated and who they’ve beaten, what level they’ve beaten. When I started here late last year, I was struggling at around 1000; just now I reached 1400 and I am thrilled. I often analyze my games, the ones I lose. The deep analysis. And I really learn a lot, I think a lot more than I even realize. I also do the tactics. Boy, tactics can really be a wake up call.

Anyway, one thing you can do before playing someone is look at their profile and see how high they have been rated, and see who they’ve beaten, that should help you decide if you even want to play them. If they’ve been incredibly high in the past, then they may very well beat you, and if their rating is low it’ll cost you a lot.

I can only speak for daily games, but I find the ratings fairly accurate. I've settled into the 1700's for a while and, playing mostly team matches with 2 games (W, B) against each opponent, I find I usually go 1/2 - 1 1/2 against 1900+ opponents, fairly equal against 1800+ to 1700 opponents. Usually a little better than even against 1600+-1500 opponents, and usually crushing against 1400+ or lower opponents.

I've learned that if I want to play with some new-to-me openings, I shouldn't do it against 1700+ players where I'm going to need every edge I can get.

Daily Chess ratings can be very misleading. I have picked up almost 150 points from games I "won" because my opponent went three days without making a move.

Sorry for coming off a bit harsh before but I find the ratings accurate as well (as a confined sense to match people evenly on Chess.com).

Bhg

I generally float around 1300 on daily, I don’t pay much attention to the ratings of my opponents, but when I look at the history I find I am doing better with the people in the 1200 to 1300 area than I do with those in the 1300 to 1400. So, the ratings must be somewhat meaningful.

I play at night often when I'm half asleep on bullet.. Doesn't help my rating and I doubt I am the only one that does that lol. I take daily a bit more serious

Yes. As I mentioned in a previous thread, sometimes I feel like I'm playing at 1300, other times I feel like I shouldn't be any higher than 800. I've even gone on a win streak against 1100s then lose a small game against a 950.

It seems like your performance can depend on a variety of factors, such as your present mood, your recent successes/failures, your opponent's profile picture, the relative thermodynamic radioactivity of unstable isotopes, etc.

+1

Proud  of being a hardcore sandbagger!😃

 

 

I know the feeling very well--my current ratings in both rapid and blitz (which is most of what I play) basically hover between 1250 and 1300.  Sometimes I lose 5 or 6 in a row and I feel like my thousands of previous wins must have been due to blind luck because I'm such an IDIOT.  But when I rip off a half-dozen or more wins, sometimes against people 100 points higher than me, there's definitely a high that gets referred to a lot as being "in the zone."  There's a confidence about it that breeds more confidence.  You don't second-guess your moves.  You look at an opponent's attack and think of how it's doomed to fail, not how it's pointing at your king and you're toast.  It's a whole different mental mindset, where wins snowball into confidence and clarity that beget more wins.

 

In short, it's a great feeling.  You should chase it.

 In my experience, rating range around 300 is just noticable ( and sometimes not). I usually play vs 1800-2200 range. In good day I can comfortably play vs 2000-2100, but in bad days ( bored, long hours play, tired, angry ), I struggle vs 1800-1900.

 

So, if you really care about your rating, play only in physically and mentally good condition.