Why would you lose on purpose like that? So you're angry OK...just go and do something else until you calm down. How does it achieve anything to just play a joke game and lose?
The curious case of 1200: The Expert's rating
Sort:
mi_chiamo_alex wrote:
nTzT ha scritto:
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.
either it is me who does not explain myself well in English, or you are a bit dull in mind that you do not understand or you pretend not to understand ... I told you NOT to take into consideration my last games as I have deliberately lost them because of the anger ... otherwise if I really played at those poor levels, since you are so "smart", explain to me how I could get a score of over 1000 points? ... if you manage to disconnect in my archive up to the games that date back to the end of January, beginning of February, you will notice how I really play ... I am not a chess champion but I certainly do not play as in the games you have taken as an example and that I explained to you why I voluntarily lost ... if you do not understand even now it means that you have serious problems of understanding and maybe you should disconnect a little from chess and devote yourself more to other entertainment
You quote me where I explain I understand that you lose out of anger and tilt, then you try to explain to me the same thing that I already mentioned. You are a lost cause.
gillaspy wrote:
Why is everyone arguing with this person?
As opposed to what? Agreeing with them? Ignoring them?
Feb 4, 2021
0
#486
Hello chess lovers. Please connect with me by sending me a friend request. I just want to get connected with more and more chess lovers across the world.
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
No !!!
Im claiming the 1000-1700 rating ladder is somewhat non sensical, because many other players stuck at low rating play as strong as players 1600-1900 from the other site (some of which happen to be otb club players around that same bracket too), and as strong as some >1500 players I've played on this very same site as well. So it makes no sense for many of them to be stuck at low rating, yet there they are and there they remain. And when you have too many people like that spread across it, it will kind of defeat the purpose of an elo ladder - which is to measure relative playing strength.
This is what I wrote. I said you think your AND other player ratings are too low. And that is exactly what you wrote.
Now you can always do a test. You and a few 1200 players go play 1900 rated players for a few games and then report back haw poorly you and those 1200 did.
Feb 5, 2021
0
#488
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
No !!!
Im claiming the 1000-1700 rating ladder is somewhat non sensical, because many other players stuck at low rating play as strong as players 1600-1900...
If they play as strong as 1600-1900 players, how do they get stuck at 1000? Winning games against higher-rated opponents increases your rating.
blueemu wrote:
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
No !!!
Im claiming the 1000-1700 rating ladder is somewhat non sensical, because many other players stuck at low rating play as strong as players 1600-1900...
If they play as strong as 1600-1900 players, how do they get stuck at 1000? Winning games against higher-rated opponents increases your rating.
He's somehow claiming that these low rated players beat each other and therefore keep their ratings low. They win when they play a 1700-1900 player but lose to a fellow 1200 player because that 1200 player is actually as strong as a 1800 player.
Feb 5, 2021
0
#490
Oh dont worry about that, Im doing really great against player in the range I mentioned. 1900s are a bit tough because Im really on the 1700-1800 strength, but I still manage. My rating at the moment is very low, barely mid 1600 which is a terrible rating - mostly due to timeouts, plus around 12 positions I resigned as I considered they were going to end up in losses anyway. I still have another 80+ games to play atm so i will bring it back up in no time. Thanks for asking.
Here's a draw that I blundered into against a 1930 (white's 37 move is a blunder) - unfortunately all I could get is a draw:
Here's a draw against a 1984 (im playing white):
Im 2-1-1 against this 2nd player so far.
Here's a win against a 1908:
Here's a win against a 1850ish player:
Im 2-1-1 against this player too.
As you can see I do really well, thank you so much for your concern.
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
Oh dont worry about that, Im doing really great against player in the range I mentioned. 1900s are a bit though because Im really on the 1700-1800 strength, but I still manage. My rating at the moment is very low, barely mid 1600 which is a terrible rating - mostly due to timeouts, plus around 12 positions I resigned as I considered they were going to end up in losses anyway. I still have another 80+ games to play atm so i will bring it back up in no time. Thanks for asking.
And these games and ratings are where? How do we know they are your games? Here at chess.com you only have two games against 1700+ players. One you won and one you lost.
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
Oh dont worry about that, Im doing really great against player in the range I mentioned. 1900s are a bit tough because Im really on the 1700-1800 strength, but I still manage. My rating at the moment is very low, barely mid 1600 which is a terrible rating - mostly due to timeouts, plus around 12 positions I resigned as I considered they were going to end up in losses anyway. I still have another 80+ games to play atm so i will bring it back up in no time. Thanks for asking.
Here's a draw that I blundered into against a 1930 (white's 37 move is a blunder) - unfortunately all I could get is a draw:
Here's a draw against a 1984 (im playing white):
Im 2-1-1 against this 2nd player so far.
Here's a win against a 1908:
Here's a win against a 1850ish player:
Im 2-1-1 against this player too.
As you can see I do really well, thank you so much for your concern.
That bad, eh? Didn't realize you were this desperate, lol.
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
As you can see I do really well, thank you so much for your concern.
And in a game yesterday against Joaquimth (1283) you hang a piece very early on.
Feb 5, 2021
0
#494
maggotmania wrote:
The 1200 hump is not commonly regarded as sport's greatest obstacle, nor does passing it allow you to claim the title of a chess expert. Chess.com has chosen this as the starting mark because a reasonably talented beginner would achieve this easily.
Guys this statement needs attention.
rishabh11great wrote:
maggotmania wrote:
The 1200 hump is not commonly regarded as sport's greatest obstacle, nor does passing it allow you to claim the title of a chess expert. Chess.com has chosen this as the starting mark because a reasonably talented beginner would achieve this easily.
Guys this statement needs attention.
I think it did get attention - 3 years ago. But only on chess.com forums does a topic like this stay unclosed for that long! 
It's hard to tell with users if they are trolling or actually this stupid. You keep thinking, "no way someone can be this dumb", but there's always someone out there ready to prove you wrong.
https://www.chess.com/member/xor_eax Their previous account doing the same whining spree, getting beat by 1200s, the usual, etc. They close their account and are back within a few weeks, smh.
Feb 5, 2021
0
#497
catmaster0 wrote:
It's hard to tell with users if they are trolling or actually this stupid. You keep thinking, "no way someone can be this dumb", but there's always someone out there ready to prove you wrong.
https://www.chess.com/member/xor_eax Their previous account doing the same whining spree, getting beat by 1200s, the usual, etc. They close their account and are back within a few weeks, smh.
Of course, I closed my account because it was a paid account and I did not want them to keep my details or support a site where a 1500 beats a titled FM, and when the 1500 gets reported for cheating or sandbagigng, they wont do anything. So I closed it and I get a freeloader account.
If you don't like it here... why play here. No one will miss you if you leave, there are more than 50 million others waiting to take your place. The website is great and your logic fails.
Feb 5, 2021
0
#499
Besides Im getting extremely annoyed at you at the moment. You have never addressed my argument. Instead, you have proceeded to
1- analyse my games and try to counter my argument based on my tactics.
2- try to counter argue my point by saying "you are lying".
3- claim im fabricating things and calling me delusional.
4- now you are looking into my account history and using it to also counter my argument, which makes no sense because u dont know the reason i closed it.
Not just that, but you are somehow 1600 elo and tried to advise me to "count the pieces on the board" as a way to analyse a position. You know, as in adding the values of the pieces disregarding everything else lol.
And you also claimed I should have played out a dead end draw where both Kings did not have a move alternative without entering a lost position, just to "hope the other player makes a mistake". You play hope chess.
Are you the forum poster the same person who plays the games in your account? Or are 2 different people?
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
catmaster0 wrote:
It's hard to tell with users if they are trolling or actually this stupid. You keep thinking, "no way someone can be this dumb", but there's always someone out there ready to prove you wrong.
https://www.chess.com/member/xor_eax Their previous account doing the same whining spree, getting beat by 1200s, the usual, etc. They close their account and are back within a few weeks, smh.
Of course, I closed my account because it was a paid account and I did not want them to keep my details or support a site where a 1500 beats a titled FM, and when the 1500 gets reported for cheating or sandbagigng, they wont do anything. So I closed it and I get a freeloader account.
You could always just trying learning enough about chess to not struggle vs players who play at the 1200-1300 level. It worked for me. Why make things up? It's not really worth it.
No !!!
Im claiming the 1000-1700 rating ladder is somewhat non sensical, because many other players stuck at low rating play as strong as players 1600-1900 from the other site (some of which happen to be otb club players around that same bracket too), and as strong as some >1500 players I've played on this very same site as well. So it makes no sense for many of them to be stuck at low rating, yet there they are and there they remain. And when you have too many people like that spread across it, it will kind of defeat the purpose of an elo ladder - which is to measure relative playing strength.
And I gave some examples of players in the 1200 that have outplayed me very easily, or have taken quick advantage of an error to turn the match around - which are things I only see when facing such club players in the other site, who happen to be around 1800 or so. I also showed some victories of mine against 1400, 1500, 1700 players from this very same site, and pointed out they are not as strong as some 1000-1200 players I have played against. As an example. I've also added a couple of victories of mine vs such club players in my post, as an example too. That's all.
It's never been about my rating. But catmaster0 is trying to prove very hard it's just me trying to tell the world Im 1600-1900 when in reality, he claims, I'm delusional and lying about such thing. This has never been my argument but obviously when I replied to him, stuff got lost in the noise. He's still trying very hard till now.
I also never claimed all 1200s are incredibly strong or all >1500 are incredibly weak. I clearly said many some of them are which kind of weakens the purpose of a rating ladder system if you can't measure a player's relative playing strength with a certain degree of confidence.
The ratings on chess.com are simply harder. That's the explanation. The explanation is not that the ratings on here don't make sense.
Your hand picked examples do nothing to demonstrate your claims. The ratings are based on math and you would have to find problems with the glicko-2 rating system if you want to disprove the value of the ratings on chess.com.