The Chess.com "UNOFFICIAL" Ratings Survey

As a Frequent Writer/Lurker on chess.com - I notice that Everpresent Question--

"how much rating can I gain If I do this for xxx months?"

this usually brings on the "ratings doesn't matter" vibe- which unfortunately always deflects the question-- How Much Rating can/do people earn in several months of constant playing?

this is a question that CAN be answered... to that end I have started the "Unofficial ratings survey"-- where I contact people randomly at different blitz ratings look at their game archive- ask a few simple questions- and hopefully can start

working on answering all the BIG Questions...

"How important is age to improvement", "does studying make a huge different", "what about OTB"....

we endlessly talk about this- but I can't think of a person that ever tried to measure It!

----

so a beginning. 24 people have been contacted.  a clear message was drafted.  will people answer?

I want to emphasis what I told them.  Their online or real life identity WILL not be revealed.  

---

What do you guys think?  am I going to confuse alot of people... this is truly random- so I'm not so very sure how much english some of these guys know...

the message is attached in the next post.

any helpful advice (analysis, random selection is appreciated)....

Hello!

As a Frequent writer to the Chess.com online forums- I know that many chess players wonder, If I were to play seriously

how much better could I get after three months of serious serious playing... 50 points? 100? 200??

While I can't say how much YOU will, or can, gain in rating, I can look at the ratings of many chess players here at Chess.com

and summarize how much the average chess player gains after several months of serious study of the fame.  I propose this study to be the

"Unofficial Rating Survey" and I have randomly selected you to be a part of this survey.  If you are willing to answer a few simple

questions honestly, I know that we can make this study epic!

I want to assure you, if you decide to participate that your own online or real-life identity is not important to me and will

not be revealed in the study and will not be given to anyone else here on Chess.com.  Instead, I will statistically analyze your

 ratings from your game archive and your answers to the following questions to get the insight of the big questions of

rating gain; that we all wonder about here at Chess.com.  I will the post the results of my survey on the Chess.com forums.

The Questions are simple! Please select the best answer to the following questions.

 AGE:  What is your approximate age?  A) teen 10-18 B) Young adult (19-29) C) Working adult (30-59) D) Senior (60+)

 
 OTB (Over the Board) Play:  A) I play in a chess club B) I play chess tournaments C) both A & B  D) Mostly online

 STUDY: A) I don't study chess B) I Ocassionally look at chess materials, but don't study
  
  C) Off and On study Program   D) serious student of the game

Should you not want to participate, please send me a brief note saying that you are not interested in participating. 

I would be curious, if your concerns stem from online chess cheating. (For example you think online rating gain is mostly

a sign of online chess cheating and not genuine improvement in chess.)  But this is optional, the most important thing is to let me

know you would rather not take part in the survey.

thank you for your time, thegreat_patzer

preliminary results are ;

people are on average gaining about 15 ratings point per month.  even though only about half the people I checked had consistant or sustained rating gains.

another interesting fact, peoples peak ratings were 2-3 times higher than their average 3 month rating gain.

what does that Mean?  its much, much easier to get a dramatic temporary increase in rating-than sustained rating increase.

-----

the whole message thing went very poorly.  I think my note was too wordy and went out to people that speak little english.

I think I will revise the message; and then translate it; to spanish at least and perhaps french.

AGE:A
OTB:D
STUDY:C 

 ty coolsawesome6.

I'd be happy to include you.  hopefully by including a lot of people I'll get a good idea about how much those three things matter...

well... ok,I still appreciate your response,

but you don't have many games here...perhaps this will help you.

Yeah,I get my face punched every time I play someone even with a rating of 850

Well,like my dad says,"victory will naturally come once you are beaten 100 times"

@cool

I've showed alot of teenagers how to play chess- I never met one that didn't dramatically improve in the game with age- and thats with NO study at all.

Now is the best time in all your life to be interested in chess.  no other time will it be so easy to make so much progress.  being willing to play and lose to stronger players is very good for your chess. Good luck!

@rasputin. true.  and my initial study is with the least significant kind of rating improvement; chess.com Blitz.

BTW, by the averages... a gain of 400 rating points is a really Long haul. nearly 2 years of determined play.

and many people I checked didn't/couldn't sustain a long term improvement.  instead they'd go up a 100-150 points then fall back down and repeat it.

I'm very interested in whether that changes when I look at higher rated players- but it didn't happen tonight.  I'll add to my study another day.

Interesting idea.

AGE: B) Young adult (19-29)

OTB Play: D) Mostly online

STUDY: B) I occasionally look at chess materials, but don't study

Age- B OTB-D Study- B

I am expanding the scope and have gone from 24 people to 57.  few people (as of yet)- have replied to my questions- I think my letter might have been too wordy.  I have simplified it.   

I appreciate the interest in this program.  

IN many peoples rating histories I see large swings of rating- gaining over a hundred in several night and falling nearly as much another...   Its not the even, steady increase people might expect.

what this means for many people, then , I think is to be less dissapointing by a very uneven rating- if your lows are steadily better- you are doing great!

anyways once I have gotten all my information together I will present it graphically, within this thread.

Let me ask you a question thegreat_patzer. What do you imagine the reason is for the following difference in results?

I once read a book that probably increased my rating 100 points just for having read it. Then over about a year another 100 as I played with its lessons in mind.

I've read other books that seem to make no difference.

thats a very interesting question.  I'm a big believer in books; but I think you need to find that one that "speaks" to you.

--

Dan Heisman whom I absolutely obsess on- says that rating change is the result of either adding something you need to do- or learning to break a bad habit. 

this, I think relates... many of the better books I have read target certain skills.  if these skills are part of a needed skill, or breaking a bad habit; than the book becomes more relevant to things you need to learn, and much more effective for you.

just as important as the topic, is the presentation - if that author is able to channel why You make the mistakes you make, and help you get over you weak moves... it can be a real gold mine for you..

ADD

That's what I was thinking. I like the Heisman quote by the way, hadn't thought of it like that.

The point of my asking was the question the OP tries to answer seems subject to this too. If the people you ask were targeting their weakness (whether they realized it or not) then they'll have big results to share. Others may work hard and not see improvement.

I wouldn't like a "ratings don't matter" vibe either. Though a vibe of "work and time are relative" seems appropriate. (Relative to the quality).

Which is to say the questions for your statistics don't seem to be the right approach. Maybe if you asked things that relate to quality of study. Just some off the top of my head:

-How often do you review your long games?

-How often do you receive one on one help from peers, coaches, random titled players, etc?

-How often do you analyze positions not from your games (this could include nearly anything but simple tactical puzzles like endgame exercises or GM games)?

-How often do you receive critique on that analysis (even if it's just from the book that presented the game or position)?

-For tactical puzzles, do you make an active effort to attempt puzzles you've missed more than once, or puzzles with new ideas that interest you? How often? How many times to you do solve them?

we Always hear threads on here about, How long will it take to get to 1500?  do I have enough time to get to masters- I'm 19?? and so on.

we never have hard numbers to answer back.  wouldn't it be nice to say; xx rating points per month-- perhaps twice of that if you young, go to chess club, and study?

its all guesses NOW.  but the Initial statistics say that even with all the wild swings, on average, there IS a small rating increase month by month. 

In short, this isn't personal to me; except perhaps from the vantage point of my last accomplishment.  (1000-1200) how many people have done that...

though, frankly the answer seems to be "A LOT" lol.