So never, then. A lot of fun *that* is. :-( Cultivating reputation sucks.
Why do I keep losing blitz to idiots?
Sort:
Poltergeists
But only at the lowest ratings.
now_and_zen wrote:
Is a common phenomena of the game sticking within your own rating realm to create the illusion of strength, and that, left to the chaos of the masses, the average so-called chess expert, could (and often do) easily fall?
No. If you think so, then you do not understand how Elo and Glicko ratings work.
@Synhaphai wrote: "No. If you think so, then you do not understand how Elo and Glicko ratings work."
Either that, or you do not understand how constraining the blitz opponent selection filter to limit opponents you play to within a +/- 100 ELO range works.
Voodoo
now_and_zen wrote:
I've noticed that when I'm playing above approx 1250, the players tend to be more sane and predictable, and one can have a more enjoyable game. But after sliding back on a losing streak when playing fatigued, stressed or distracted, and having to fight my way back up again, I get nailed by people of considerably lower ratings.
Besides me being an idiot (obviously), and chess trolls slumming the lower profiles, what else could explain such a phenomena, and is it common? Is a common phenomena of the game sticking within your own rating realm to create the illusion of strength, and that, left to the chaos of the masses, the average so-called chess expert, could (and often do) easily fall?
There is the possibility you aren't as good as you think you are.
now_and_zen wrote:
Either that, or you do not understand how constraining the blitz opponent selection filter to limit opponents you play to within a +/- 100 ELO range works.
Wot? There's too much contact between players at widely different skill levels for the claim that a chess expert could easily lose to players rated below 1250 to be true.
@eciruam wrote: "Poltergeists", "Voodoo"
Yeah yeah, so you say. But I think if you took a bunch of 1500-1800 ELO blitz players and set them against 1100 - 1200 players suddenly, they'd be caught out of sorts and would lose a surprising number of games and wouldn't climb back up to 1500-1800 very fast.
I've thought that phenomenon is a singular and phenomena is a plural and now i see "a phenomena". Interesting.
Synaphai wrote:
now_and_zen wrote:
Either that, or you do not understand how constraining the blitz opponent selection filter to limit opponents you play to within a +/- 100 ELO range works.
Wot? There's too much contact between players at widely different skill levels for the claim that a chess expert could easily lose to players rated below 1250 to be true.
I'm sure some people at higher ratings have such solid skills that they could play willy-nilly against all ranks, but I think that possibly a substantial number of players cultivating higher ELO ratings are very selective of the ELO ratings of players they compete with, to avoid getting taken down a notch or three. Thus, by constraining the games they play, very carefully, they protect their rank in a way that is not accurately reflective of their ability to take on any and all comers at ranks below theirs.
now_and_zen wrote:
@eciruam wrote: "Poltergeists", "Voodoo"
Yeah yeah, so you say. But I think if you took a bunch of 1500-1800 ELO blitz players and set them against 1100 - 1200 players suddenly, they'd be caught out of sorts
Only if they made the single mistake of underestimating their opponents.
Perhaps you are underestimating your opponents because you feel you are a stronger player. This is a normal but unproductive way to feel.
If you are losing to idiots, then it means the idiots played better than you, regardless of the circumstances.
The only way to break out of it is to not underestimate your opponents and find yourself in a situation that is not condusive to your skill level.
Conspiricy Theory #2368256197
Is that Robert Blake in your profile pic?
ericuam wrote: "
-
Conspiricy Theory #2368256197"
Yeah, but @ericaum, you don't have any blitz games, so we can't put you to the test. You didn't (couldn't? afraid to?) actually respond specifically, to my specific claim above, that if you took 1500-1800 ELO players and suddenly pitted them against 1100 players and expected them to fight their way back up, that they would stumble to a startling degree and it would take them a quite awhile to do it, rather than be just a fast linear tragectory back up to their so-called rating, which is protected by filtering the ratings of their challengers.
Apr 16, 2015
0
#19
OP... you can't post a question and then attack anyone who shows a different opinion to yours haha. Calling someone afraid because they made a joke about a conspiracy theory doesn't really show the most balanced view of trying to get an answer.
UPDATE: Based on being taken too literally and some taking offense at that, I would like to say, referring to lower-ranked players, when I lose to them, as "idiots" is in mock of the frustration at losing a game I expected to win to a lower ranked player, and not that they are actual idiots or less deserving of respect as human beings. There are plenty of non-idiots who don't play chess well (I hope, otherwise I'm an idiot) (don't answer that, I know).
I've noticed that when I'm playing above approx 1250, the players tend to be more sane and predictable, and one can have a more enjoyable game. But after sliding back on a losing streak when playing fatigued, stressed or distracted, and having to fight my way back up again, I get nailed by people of considerably lower ratings.
Besides me being an idiot (obviously), and chess trolls slumming the lower profiles, what else could explain such a phenomena, and is it common? Is a common phenomena of the game sticking within your own rating realm to create the illusion of strength, and that, left to the chaos of the masses, the average so-called chess expert, could (and often do) easily fall?