JGambit wrote:
A GM with a massaged ego is more likely to play on your site.
Or, less likely to screw up your rating system. (not that starting them higher is a perfect solution, but it's a better fix than no fix at all)
Titled get's rating automatically?
Sort:
harryz wrote:
Sure. This FM, from what I remember, was the youngest USCF expert in history.
http://www.chess.com/home/game_archive?show=live_bullet&member=chesskingdreamer&page=1
Wait... you're saying that chesskingdreamer is the youngest USCF expert in history?!?!
post 48; I'm in my 30's. That's even more embarassing. What is your point??
chessmicky wrote:
When Judit Polgar played Nigel Short, they were both well-known GM's with well established ratings, The ratings you saw on the screen were their FIDE ratings not their Chess.com ratings
They made it their chess.com ratings because they where playing blitz 3 minute games with ratings at the site according to their real life rating.
I played an FM recently who was complete garbage, you can certainly argue that its online so it doesnt matter to people that take OTB seriously.
However my conclusion having played a number of people who are over 2000 but only willing to play unratted games is that these players are massively overatted.
Having seen people with ratinging of over 2 grand that would not have mathmatically been able to get there I start to think I have the picture figured out.
Titled players (including weaker than IM or GM) get really high ratings right off the bat for proving their title. If they made a regular account I venture to say that they would not make it nearly as high as they do.
can anyone else offer some insight to me on the topic?
The thing is though if these guys started at 1200 they would just suck rating points from everyone until they got to a much higher rating. I would imagine starting at 2000 would decrease this problem somewhat; even if their blitz is actually worse than 2000, it's highly unlikely it would be under 1800 for example.
When chess.com verified my title all my ratings below 2000 were brought right up to 2000.
Elubas it doesnt matter if good players sucked points from everyone. It also doesn't bother me that they get 2 grand automatically.
It just very much helps to know. Before I suspected they got a bump I thought these players were worlds away from my level. Sure they are quite a bit better than me and others but certainly not 500 glicko points better, that translates to a much higher win percentage than is reality.
I do think that weaker titled play around a steady 1800 blitz minumum however.
also thanks for the closure JMB,
Trust me, they are worlds away from your level :) They're worlds away from my level. But blitz is a weird thing. Not having good blitz skills means you may make mistakes that you just would never ever make in a standard game. Your brain has to be looking at the right stuff in blitz, sometimes but not necessarily the same kind of stuff you need to look for in a standard game. There is an FM who is in the 1500s in bullet.
All in all I think there is the potential for there to be an illusion that we are close to some titled players (in real chess) because some of them are particularly not well accustomed to blitz. But it really is just an illusion. Some can adjust very well to a blitz format but for others the format does not allow them to find the same things they do in standard because they have not figured out how to adjust their thought processes. This will result in inexplicable blunders for some otherwise strong players.
How you stack up to titled players?
If you think they are really worlds away you must have a reason behind it.
I've never beaten a titled player, though I beat one 2200. Rumor has it he was sandbagging, but didn't realize that he was floored...
Well ok admittedly for something like FM I wouldn't quite say they are in a different universe but the difference is vast. But IM and above yeah I'd say they are in a different world, they're pretty much invincible to obvious mistakes; avoiding oversights is just so automatic for them to the point where it's basically just not in their DNA. They can practically always find a move to improve their position or make a threat without giving you any real opportunities. I mean it's relative of course since Houdini would find plenty of fault with them but that's the kind of experience I get playing them and seeing their play.
JGambit wrote:
I played an FM recently who was complete garbage, you can certainly argue that its online so it doesnt matter to people that take OTB seriously.
However my conclusion having played a number of people who are over 2000 but only willing to play unratted games is that these players are massively overatted.
Having seen people with ratinging of over 2 grand that would not have mathmatically been able to get there I start to think I have the picture figured out.
Titled players (including weaker than IM or GM) get really high ratings right off the bat for proving their title. If they made a regular account I venture to say that they would not make it nearly as high as they do.
can anyone else offer some insight to me on the topic?
This wasnt the case for me , I started at 1200 . Has it changed since I joined or is it possible you don't know what you are talking about ?
Very possible I have no clue what Im talking about
It just seemed to me at one point that many titled I had played were really not that impressive compared to their rating
To have a real idea of the strength of a titled player its best to play them OTB . In online games you can never even be sure you are actually playing who you think you are . The titled player may let others use their account , or they could be drunk , or they may be very old or simply not any good at certain time controls .... there are many possible explanations . I know a GM for example on another server that hasnt used his account in years but some of his family members do and they are much weaker players than him, ofcourse. However when they lose their opponent is always bragging about beating a GM and may even talk about how badly the GM played the game ... the truth is they arent playing a GM ...
Yeah, remember they aren't given the title for online speed play. Titles are awarded for OTB chess.
If the ones who aren't very good took a break from regular games and only played blitz every day for a month, they'd get the hang of it I'm sure. But IMO it's not worth it. Blitz is just for fun.
very good points.
"If the ones who aren't very good took a break from regular games and only played blitz every day for a month, they'd get the hang of it I'm sure. But IMO it's not worth it. Blitz is just for fun."
This is precisely my philosophy. Now yeah, sometimes if I'm on a losing streak I'll want to "get a few points back," but I'm not going to actually study blitz as seriously as I study chess just to have a bigger number. Blitz can predict chess ability; but if you already know your chess ability (OTB rating), what's the point of relying on a prediction? If you are a master and turn out to be bad at blitz all you can really say is that if you didn't play OTB it would have looked like you weren't that good -- but again knowing your OTB rating you know that's not actually true.
And he started off at 1200?