If a 1300 rated players has consistently beaten 1700's five times in a row, why shouldn't he automatically be a 1700?
USCF Ratings
Sort:
Apr 29, 2013
0
#3
his rating will change at the end of the day and by how much it depend on the calculation.
kco wrote:
his rating will change at the end of the day and by how much it depend on the calculation.
Well, that's a bit unfair if the opponent has proven that he belongs in the 1700+ rating group.
Why should his rating slowly increase? Why should he remain a 1300+ rated opponent?
I think it should be automatic.
Apr 29, 2013
0
#5
same thing applied to here. when we start we started off with the rating of 1200 whether you are a good or a bad player.
ReallyHateChess wrote:
Again, you cannot assume that you are on that level because you beat “one” 1700 rated player… we all make mistakes. Consistency is beating many players at that rating level which will not happen even if you are at that level. This is why you slowly built rating.
Okay, fine. A 1925 rated players beats an IM rated 2480.
In the next five games he defeats five IM's. Shouldn't his rating be level to theirs after such a performance? Why must the opponent continue having a 1925 rating?
How fast your rating goes up is partly a function of how many games you have played overall as well as th relative ratings of those you have beaten or lost to. If you beat 5 players rated over 1700 in your first 5 games, my guess is that your rating would move from 1200 (the default initial rating) to at least 1500 or 1600. On the other hand, if you have played 1000 games with a mixed record of wins and losses over the last 10 games (for example, winning against 5 1700 players but losing to 5 1000 players) , I don't think your rating should automatically go to 1700.
I looked at your recent games, and you actually gained over 200 points in 10 games played during a single day, going from the 1100s to mid-1300s. This is not a slow climb. Moreover, your record was 5 wins, 4 losses and 1 draw. The highest rated player you defeated was in the 1400s. So I don't think your record has "proven" that you "belong" to the 1700+ group.
Yereslov wrote:
kco wrote:
his rating will change at the end of the day and by how much it depend on the calculation.
Well, that's a bit unfair if the opponent has proven that he belongs in the 1700+ rating group.
Why should his rating slowly increase? Why should he remain a 1300+ rated opponent?
I think it should be automatic.
pt22064 wrote:
How fast your rating goes up is partly a function of how many games you have played overall as well as th relative ratings of those you have beaten or lost to. If you beat 5 players rated over 1700 in your first 5 games, my guess is that your rating would move from 1200 (the default initial rating) to at least 1500 or 1600. On the other hand, if you have played 1000 games with a mixed record of wins and losses over the last 10 games (for example, winning against 5 1700 players but losing to 5 1000 players) , I don't think your rating should automatically go to 1700.
I looked at your recent games, and you actually gained over 200 points in 10 games played during a single day, going from the 1100s to mid-1300s. This is not a slow climb. Moreover, your record was 5 wins, 4 losses and 1 draw. The highest rated player you defeated was in the 1400s. So I don't think your record has "proven" that you "belong" to the 1700+ group.
Yereslov wrote:
kco wrote:
his rating will change at the end of the day and by how much it depend on the calculation.
Well, that's a bit unfair if the opponent has proven that he belongs in the 1700+ rating group.
Why should his rating slowly increase? Why should he remain a 1300+ rated opponent?
I think it should be automatic.
I am chatting about the rating system itself, not about myself.
1600-1700 is way too low for someone who has successfully beaten five IM's in the past month.
It's just nor right.
Apr 29, 2013
0
#9
but during a otb tournament first you will be pair up with a higher rated player and if you win you will be play against a musch higher rated player in the next round and so on but his rating will remain the same till at the end of the day it may changed.
Apr 29, 2013
0
#10
so you are saying a 15 year old feel confident that he can drive (been praciting at the farm) so he should automatically get a full licence ?
(All the police and lawmakers are ROFLAO when they hear about this)
kco wrote:
so you are saying a 15 year old feel confident that he can drive (been praciting at the farm) so he should automatically get a full license ?
(All the police and lawmakers are ROFLAO when they hear about this)
It's not the same thing. A rating indicates skill. A license just indicates that you passed a test, which isn't really all that hard depending on where you live.
Apr 29, 2013
0
#12
that the point you sart at the bottom and work your way up, you can't just get a full licence automatically same with the rating you cant just automatically get to 1700 you got to earn it to get there just like everyone does it.
kco wrote:
that the point you sart at the bottom and work your way up, you can't just get a full licence automatically same with the rating you cant just automatically get to 1700 you got to earn it to get there just like everyone does it.
I think beating five IM's in a month is enough incentive to give a player a rating of 2400+.
Ratings should indicate skill.
Apr 29, 2013
0
#15
Per
The United States Chess Federation - Rating Estimator
a 5 of 5 score against 1700 rated players by a 1300 rated player would give the player a new rating of 1620.
RoyLupez wrote:
Per
The United States Chess Federation - Rating Estimator
a 5 of 5 score against 1700 rated players by a 1300 rated player would give the player a new rating of 1620.
At least the USCF got one thing right...
kco wrote:
Well where else has it got it wrong ?
Everything.
If an opponent rated 1325 beats an opponent rated 1700, don't you think that the player should be automatically moved up to the same rating floor? It seems only fair. Or the case should only apply if there are a set number of wins against stiff competition.