The curious case of 1200: The Expert's rating
Sort:
The good news is that you aren't playing vs bots, the bad news is that you are playing like a 1950s bot.
Feb 4, 2021
0
#444
What I think that message says is "bots are conquering chess" ... it's probably an ad from chess.com for their bots (you know, the "personalities" you can play against).
I bet he is well aware.
He has to be a troll. Playing that bad and thinks the other side is a computer?
Feb 4, 2021
0
#447
little_guinea_pig wrote:
blueemu wrote:
little_guinea_pig wrote:
... although you might have been believed even more had you sent it when your rating was 2700
Like a sky-rocket, I zoomed up into the heavens, touched 2751 for an instant... and then burst, in a shower of scintillating sparks.
To think that you were almost as strong as Bobby Fischer at one point... before all the low rated players who didn't understand what "distorted rating pools" and "statistical basis" meant complained about the Daily rating changes.
I was an elephant, attacked by a swarm of ants! Flailing about with my trunk, trumpeting frantically, trying to scatter them... but to no avail. They dragged me back down to 2351.
It was a genuine tragedy.
It's hard to tell sometimes. Some are trolling, and others are doing the exact same thing unironically. I saw a guy struggling around 1000 talking about how they thought they were ~2300 I think and able to tell what their opponent's ratings were just by playing them, and then talked about how they were beating 1700s, etc. (The ratings being based on their own assessments of their opponent.)
Even earlier today we had some poster claiming on this thread they were what, a 1900? And losing to "OP 1200s" who were hanging material and missing free pieces like a <1000. Don't feel like skimming back to check what the exact digits were, though it was hilarious.
Feb 4, 2021
0
#450
i go as low as 1100 and as high as 1400 but in certain cases i can beat even on occasion 1500s its more of my sloppy play that gets me in trouble with the lower rates and i dont beat 1500s too often so i would only assume 1475 will be the highest rate i ever get, but with time and patience who knows what one can accomplish? 1200 is not a hump lol
Feb 4, 2021
0
#451
catmaster0 wrote:
It's hard to tell sometimes. Some are trolling, and others are doing the exact same thing unironically. I saw a guy struggling around 1000 talking about how they thought they were ~2300 I think and able to tell what their opponent's ratings were just by playing them, and then talked about how they were beating 1700s, etc. (The ratings being based on their own assessments of their opponent.)
Even earlier today we had some poster claiming on this thread they were what, a 1900? And losing to "OP 1200s" who were hanging material and missing free pieces like a <1000. Don't feel like skimming back to check what the exact digits were, though it was hilarious.
Just because you choose to ignore evidence and then disregard anyone as a "liar" does not make you right.
Im not lying when I say I've been between 1600-1900 for some time now, and Im beating club players around the 1800 - 1900 ELO.
I've even pasted two games i won, from my other site which you very conveniently disregarded - including a game from a player who is a 1900 elo club OTB player.
And why would I lie about having a rating so low? Considering 1600-1900 is still a very low rating - not even close to a 2200 or 2300 which should be baseline ... what would I gain by lying and claiming such a low rating? Don't you think I could claim to be 2000+ if I was going to lie? Based on my 1000s games of experience I can tell you many 1200s here are stuck in that bracket and are as strong as 1600, 1700 players, or even higher.
I face them every day. Want more examples? From today? Here, from the arena, very easy games:
https://www.chess.com/live/game/6450947147
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/6450651469
Do you want to know who was harder of them all? This 1200:
https://www.chess.com/live/game/6450525016
from the same Arena instance. I could barely draw against him. This 1200 does not play like a 1200 player at all.
I've already proved it countless times. Rating on the lower brackets on this site is meaningless. When you have some low 1000s playing stronger than players on the higher end of the 1000s, but stuck in the lower end bracket, it kinda ruins the entire point of an ELO ladder system. It's not fair for those very same players who end up playing against each other and staying down, not it is fair for REAL low 1000s who are completely destroyed when they face those players.
Do you think it's fair for that 1470 to lose so many points because they had to face at my incredibly low rating? Do u think it's fair for the almost 1800 to lose so many points because they had to face me? Do you think it's fair for a REAL 1200 to have to play me? I've played many of those, and I end up so superior even before the 15 move it's not even funny. And they lose as much rating as if they had played against another real 1200.
Feb 4, 2021
0
#452
Sure. At our level, lack of consistency is the major problem, more so than tactical or strategic weakness. I've had games where I played like a Grandmaster, and other games where I played like a moron. One advantage that (most) IMs and GMs have... and one reason that they -are- IMs and GMs instead of being untitled players... is consistency.
Feb 4, 2021
0
#453
Grandmasters study the game immensely so they dont make the silly mistakes we do.
Feb 4, 2021
0
#454
Yes Optimissed, if we want to be great we have to upt the time in too.
Feb 4, 2021
0
#455
I seriously, seriously doubt they are padding the playerbase with bots. Playing against a computer has a very distinctive feeling, and playing vs a handicapped computer (to bring it down to very low elo) feels incredibly unnatural. Everyone else would notice it too, across every level of play - not just you. And Im sure it'd be more noticeable by higher rated players. Im sure any player above 2000 would easily realise they are playing vs a handicapped version of a chess engine.
Maybe you are facing the same issue Im describing - you are being paired with players who have very low elo but in reality they have a greater playing strength than what they ELO suggests. They are all over the place. Not to mention sandbaggers and the occasional engine cheater which im sure exists.
mi_chiamo_alex wrote:
nTzT ha scritto:
if you scroll through my archive until about February 1st, you will realize that I had a score of over 1000 points ... in fact, if you read my initial post carefully, I denounce this anomaly of the site of making me meet screens of strong players who lower me report the score, every time I add 100 points to my range: from 500 to 600 points; from 600 to 700 points; from 700 to 800 ... and so on ... you do not take into consideration my last game also because, many of the latter correspond to them I deliberately lost out of anger following this anomaly ... but I repeat go back on my archive until the games between late January, early February
You transcend delusion. You get scholars mated and play the opening like someone who is TRYING to lose. You have no pattern recognition to spot basic things like that yet you think you are spotting bots and some weird patterns in play.
You need to focus your energy on playing better and improving instead of making excuses. It's pathetic...
Most of your losses look like this... you have serious anger/tilt issues or something. You need to get some exercise out in the sunlight and take a break... or just get a new hobby. You clearly don't enjoy this game.
nTzT wrote:
Most of your losses look like this... you have serious anger/tilt issues or something. You need to get some exercise out in the sunlight and take a break... or just get a new hobby. You clearly don't enjoy this game.
WTF was that. 9 of his 12 moves were errors or down right blunders. He's lucky he's even rated 800 as I think that is way too high for that type of playing.
He tilts after losing games and then throw some of them on purpose.
But his second move was stupid and his third just gave a piece away. He wasn't losing yet. And so he's down a piece. Odds aren't good but another 800 rated player can still blunder. Instead his queen is gone on move 6.
Now maybe he did that on purpose. If so then he should have resigned on move 4. But most players would still try to do something and play right for at least another dozen moves or so.
There's so much wrong with this it's actually just fascinating the incredible ways people go to explain why they can't make progress.
If he was as good at winning as he is at making excuses for losing, he's have a title by now.