Why play turn-based? - Chess Forums - Page 6

Ziryab

Dec 20, 2009

0

#101

Atos wrote:

Ziyrab wrote:

Notions of inflation and deflation of ratings presume an error: ratings are comparable. They are not. Ratings have internal consistency within any given pool. They serve as measures of self-improvement, and guides to finding appropriate opponents. Comparing live chess ratings to turn-based cannot establish that one is inflated, or the other deflated. Neither is "real" as a standard against which the other might be measured.

*But if the same people have lower ratings by about 300 points in Live Chess than in online (as seems to be the case with most who play both), then this does provide a standard by which they can be compared. Surely you are not suggesting that they somehow magically become weaker players when they enter "Live Chess."

No, you have insufficient data to make this comparison.

No, I am not suggesting such magic as should be abundantly clear from my words that you quote.

uffruffEccekio

Dec 20, 2009

0

#102

As an aside. I seem to play at least 300 points higher in internet games than I do OTB. No. I don't uses an engine or a database.

I am an "engineering bloke", so I think it is because on many online sites you see the board in "plan view". This seems sto be more acceptable to my brain. ie. You can more easily see what your opponent is up to.

The alternative OTB, is to stand behind your opponent and peer over his shoulder, or swing from the chandeliers.

I find "online" I can beat people rated 1800+ {claimed}. Whist OTB I know I would not have a chance. This makes me curious about ratings also.

uffruffEccekio

Dec 20, 2009

0

#103

As an aside. I seem to play at least 300 points higher in internet games than I do OTB. No. I don't uses an engine or a database.

I am an "engineering bloke", so I think it is because on many online sites you see the board in "plan view". This seems sto be more acceptable to my brain. ie. You can more easily see what your opponent is up to.

The alternative OTB, is to stand behind your opponent and peer over his shoulder, or swing from the chandeliers.

I find "online" I can beat people rated in the 1800s {claimed}. Whist OTB I know I would not have a chance. This makes me curious about ratings also.

Atos

Dec 20, 2009

0

#104

Ziryab wrote:

Atos wrote:

It may indeed be that the 'top level' (FM and above) is better represented in Online than in Live. But this does not enable us to generalize on the 'pool' as a whole as you do. There are people who play in both and their ratings can be compared.

That the highest blitz rating in Live chess is below 2500 should probably be expected although there are in fact IMs and FMs in Live Chess. The highest rated player in Online is above 2900 which suggests that he is significantly stronger than the current World's Fide champion. I am skeptical that the appeal of the Online chess here is quite that powerful.

I am not generalizing without support. You offer only piecemeal support for your assertions. A generalization that holds true at the highest levels might be reflected at lower levels. To suggest that a reverse generalization holds true below candidate master, to wit, that Live chess here has better appeal than turn-based defies common sense. If you produced som data to support it, we could entertain it for the sake of further discussion.

*Well you are asking me to prove something that I did not claim. That I pointed out that your generalization is not supported by evidence does not mean that I offered a reversed generalization. However I do have an impression that there are plenty of strong players in Live Chess at the level of Class A to expert. (Even if their ratings do not quite suggest they are that level.) I also some titled players in Live and their ratings are usually below what you would expect given their title.

Almost all websites have ratings higher than FIDE, USCF, CFC, etc. The ratings are valid within their pool, not outside of it.

*I am not sure what it means that they are valid "within their pool." As I see it, the ratings are supposed to be an accurate representation of chess playing strength within the pool of chess players, not just within some closed group.

Atos wrote:

I play in Live Chess not turn-based because 1. I think that in turn-based there is more cheating and 2. [snip--personal tastes]

That's where generalizing to the pool as a whole without supporting data began. You offer no credible basis for suspicions of turn-based over live, and several posters have explained how easy in might be (assuming that Erik and company are not vigilent--they are!) to cheat in live.

As I recollect I was responding (perhaps indirectly) to some earlier post, and as you see my post was about personal preferences. I do not have evidence for this suspicion and I am not in the position to obtain it so I backed up from this claim.

Kupov3

Dec 20, 2009

0

#105

Ziryab wrote:

Kupov3 wrote:

Ziryab wrote:

Kupov3 wrote:

Ziryab a turn based player with a rating of 1384 would play at the same level as a live player of 1187. The actual number is meaningless.

You assume that the mean (or average) in both pools reflects the same level of play. It almost certainly does not.

Given that you claim a Canadian OTB rating in the mid-1800s, but are better than 99.2% of those playing Live Standard on Chess.com, you should know better. If you believe, however, that 1852 CFC is equivalent to 2400+ FIDE, you might rationally disagree.

You are much nearer the top in your Chess.com pool than in your national federation.

This is about how live corresponds to CC, not how live corresponds tto FIDE. That said if you think that .8% of all FIDE plyers are rated 2400 you are insane.

I claim that I would be in the 95th - 98th percentile on chess.com playing CC. This would make my rating smewhere between 2100 and 2200. Again. Do you belive that 2% of all OTB players are above 2100? Obviously not, CC ratings on this site are simply higher then OTB or live ratings. NOT because the players are stronger.

I haven't called you insane.

I don't know the percentiles of FIDE ratings, but would expect some skewing from the fact that until the past few years, 2000 was the FIDE floor for initial rating (it was possible to drop slightly below 2000 after first achieving that level). FIDE lowered their floor to 1600, and they may have dropped in further more recently. Even so, 0.8% is a more reasonable guess than anything you've offered.

God you're insane. Do you honestly believe that nearly 1 out of every 100 FIDE rated chess players are 2400+?

You're implying that out of every 1000 FIDE rated players, 80 will be 2400+. Obviously this is untrue.

Your argument is simply absurd. You believe that CC ratings are higher because the players are stronger? Do you magically become much stronger (yes you play better with 3 days per move, but so does everyone else, so that doesn't explain rating gains) when you switch to CC?

Don't make me laugh. Your arguments are weak.

Ziryab

Dec 20, 2009

0

#106

Atos wrote:

As I recollect I was responding (perhaps indirectly) to some earlier post, and as you see my post was about personal preferences. I do not have evidence for this suspicion and I am not in the position to obtain it so I backed up from this claim.

Fair enough. I felt a need to clarify a similar, but opposite, suspicion.

In terms of the rating difference between turn-based and live, we might also look at the rating formula employed. Rating gain and loss in my experience is far less dramatic in live.It may be that it takes less time to get an RD below 80 in live, but there might be a different Elo formula in play as well that would account for some differences in the ratings of many players that do both here.

My worst recent losses in live seem to drop me a mere 12, while I've lost 40+ giving up similar upsets in turn-based. In at least one case, the same player has scored upset victories against me in both turn-based and live. By scoring ~45% over more than twenty games, he dropped my bullet almost 100 one night. We've played five turn-based, and his one draw and one win have dropped my rating nearly half that much.

Ziryab

Dec 20, 2009

0

#107

Kupov3 wrote:

God you're insane. Do you honestly believe that nearly 1 out of every 100 FIDE rated chess players are 2400+?

You're implying that out of every 1000 FIDE rated players, 80 will be 2400+. Obviously this is untrue.

Your argument is simply absurd. You believe that CC ratings are higher because the players are stronger? Do you magically become much stronger (yes you play better with 3 days per move, but so does everyone else, so that doesn't explain rating gains) when you switch to CC?

Don't make me laugh. You arguments are weak.

I didn't say what you allege. But, I provided links to credible sites that offer something close to that.

I said that I don't know FIDE's percentiles.

As long as you fantasize assertions that I not only have not made, but that presume an assumption that I have refuted over and over again--your "magical" playing strength nonsense,--your red herrings will be fried on a bonfire of straw men. I never stated that all turn-based players are stronger. I did provide clear evidence that the vast majority of the strongest players here play turn-based, but not live.

My arguments are evidently so far over your head that you will benefit from a few hours at the feet of teacher_1. Weak my arguments may be, but they're far too strong for anything you've put forth.

Atos

Dec 20, 2009

0

#108

Ziryab wrote:

Rating gain and loss in my experience is far less dramatic in live.It may be that it takes less time to get an RD below 80 in live, but there might be a different Elo formula in play as well that would account for some differences in the ratings of many players that do both here.

*Not sure, I thought there was the same Glicko formula being used in both but perhaps the staff could inform us about this.

Kupov3

Dec 20, 2009

0

#109

Ziryab wrote:

Kupov3 wrote:

God you're insane. Do you honestly believe that nearly 1 out of every 100 FIDE rated chess players are 2400+?

You're implying that out of every 1000 FIDE rated players, 80 will be 2400+. Obviously this is untrue.

Your argument is simply absurd. You believe that CC ratings are higher because the players are stronger? Do you magically become much stronger (yes you play better with 3 days per move, but so does everyone else, so that doesn't explain rating gains) when you switch to CC?

Don't make me laugh. You arguments are weak.

I did provide clear evidence that the vast majority of the strongest players here play turn-based, but not live.

No you provided evidence that the vast majority of CC players have higher ratings. Are you implying that the vast majority of the strongest players in the world play CC chess on chess.com? Because the ratings here certainly imply that.

Ziryab

Dec 20, 2009

0

#110

Kupov3 wrote:

No you provided evidence that the vast majority of CC players have higher ratings. Are you implying that the vast majority of the strongest players in the world play CC chess on chess.com? Because the ratings here certainly imply that.

As long as you distort every statement that I make, and offer arguments against your own fantasies, your red herrings will be fried on a bonfire of straw men and other perversions of logic.

Kupov3

Dec 20, 2009

0

#111

Sum up your argument then. Why do you think the CC ratings are so much higher than the live/OTB ratings?

I must have misunderstood you.

Ziryab

Dec 20, 2009

0

#112

Kupov3 wrote:

Sum up your argument then. Why do you think the CC ratings are so much higher than the live/OTB ratings?

I must have misunderstood you.

I've offered several reasons. I'm not certain that any or even all fully account for the difference.

1. The average difference probably differs at least partly because of the overall strength of the pool. However, because individuals that play both generally have higher turn-based ratings, that explanation is insufficient.

Ziryab wrote:

The average rating in live chess here is ~200 below that of turn-based. I suspect that the most significant cause, but not the only cause, is that live chess here appeals to more casual and weak players, while it fails to appeal to serious and strong players.

2. At the top of the live chess pool, the quality of players (judging by the lower frequency of titled players) is lower. Thus strong class players (I put you and I in this category) have fewer superior opponents making it harder to climb the rating tree. However, this factor may not account for the lower average rating.

Ziryab wrote:

For ratings to grow significantly above 2400, there must be a large and active pool of players at or near that level. There are not such in live here; there are in turn-based. Turn-based appeals more to strong players because this site excells at turn-based chess. For live, ICC and Playchess are far better for the top players. Those site have players rated well above 3000 using approximately the same Elo or Glicko formula.

3. Many players (I know this is true of me) that are here for turn-based chess may play the occasional blitz game during idle moments, but without the same fervor. This may account for some individual variation, but I would hesitate to generalize too far from my own experience.

Ziryab wrote:

My live ratings are lower, but my percentile ranking is higher. The top players at this site do not play live here. Indeed, I can only rarely get a live game against someone rated above me. The rating drops more with each loss, and climbs less with each victory as a consequence.

4. It is conceivable that ratings are more static in live, either because the RD of 80 is reached more easily, or because the rating formula is different. This is un-researched speculation.

Ziryab wrote:

In terms of the rating difference between turn-based and live, we might also look at the rating formula employed. Rating gain and loss in my experience is far less dramatic in live.It may be that it takes less time to get an RD below 80 in live, but there might be a different Elo formula in play as well that would account for some differences in the ratings of many players that do both here.

Ziryab

Dec 20, 2009

0

#113

Atos wrote:

Ziryab wrote:

Rating gain and loss in my experience is far less dramatic in live.It may be that it takes less time to get an RD below 80 in live, but there might be a different Elo formula in play as well that would account for some differences in the ratings of many players that do both here.

*Not sure, I thought there was the same Glicko formula being used in both but perhaps the staff could inform us about this.

Chess.com's explanation of the rating system gives no indication of a different formula. However, a check of my own rating data reveal that my RD for bullet and blitz is approximately half of my RD for turn-based. My standard live has approximately the same RD as turn-based. This difference in RD accounts for the greater volatility of my turn-based rating.

With a generally weaker pool (or one that is lower rated), players reach a low RD before they reach a high rating. Rating gains are thus slower.

Kupov3

Dec 21, 2009

0

#114

Start a chess website, and only ten players join, all ten players are GM's, all ten players start at 1200.

None of these GM's will ever make it past 1500.

Now.

Start a chess website and thousands and thousands of players join. Most of these players have USCF abilities in the 800-1400 range. Start them all at 1200. Many players surpass their actual USCF ability by playing against other players in this pool which inflates the rating.

odinspirit

Dec 21, 2009

0

#115

I started out playing CC exclusively, but I find myself playing live more and more.

To me they both work on different facets of my development.

Live for me is a simulation of OTB. No analysis board. No opening book. Time pressure. As a result I'm gettting my clock cleaned far more often, but I think overall it's making me a better player.

Live is really great for working on openings, which has been my most neglected subject. I find that the people who play a lot of lIve chess know a lot of traps.

So after getting burned over and over by various traps it wisens you up a bit.

Ziryab

Dec 22, 2009

0

#116

Kupov3 wrote: Do you magically become much stronger (yes you play better with 3 days per move, but so does everyone else, so that doesn't explain rating gains) when you switch to CC?

Some might, although its not magic.

In one minute chess some players make random absurd moves. It's a useful technique when you're opponent is down to a second or two, but some play that way from the beginning. I'd like to think they do not play the same way when their opponent has three days to examine the error.

woton

Dec 22, 2009

0

#117

A rating is a statistic. It is based on a formula that was developed using various assumptions. Typically, the assumptions are not 100% valid for all calculations, but they are adequate for the intended purpose. Hence, a player's rating for different groups (turn-based, live-chess, USCF, etc.) will vary.

Atos

Dec 22, 2009

0

#118

Ziryab wrote:

Kupov3 wrote: Do you magically become much stronger (yes you play better with 3 days per move, but so does everyone else, so that doesn't explain rating gains) when you switch to CC?

Some might, although its not magic.

In one minute chess some players make random absurd moves. It's a useful technique when you're opponent is down to a second or two, but some play that way from the beginning. I'd like to think they do not play the same way when their opponent has three days to examine the error.

Yes but most people make better moves when they have 3 days per move so that doesn't explain the ratings. I think that Kupov made a pretty good case that lower average ratings in Live Chess might well be due to tougher competition. (My own impression is that competition in Live is pretty tough below IM level or so.) Also, it is not like everyone in Live Chess plays 1 minute, I myself almost never play it. But I admit that I would find 3 days per move too long.

Ziryab

Dec 22, 2009

0

#119

Atos wrote:

I think that Kupov made a pretty good case that lower average ratings in Live Chess might well be due to tougher competition. (My own impression is that competition in Live is pretty tough below IM level or so.)

So, that's what Kupov was getting at! There may be tough competition in some rating ranges. I've been surprised at the quality of play of players in the 1200-1500 range at blitz. But, in so-called standard, this site resembles all the others at which I've played. Most opponents 1500-2000 exhibit horrendous play, but a few are quite tough. Part of the reason I shy away from time controls longer than 20 3 is the enormous investment of time for as game that might be decided by an egregious blunder.

My lone standard game this morning serves to highlight the poor level of play in the 1600s. OTB players above 1200 are rarely this careless.

Kupov3

Dec 22, 2009

0

#120

Ziryab wrote:

Kupov3 wrote: Do you magically become much stronger (yes you play better with 3 days per move, but so does everyone else, so that doesn't explain rating gains) when you switch to CC?

Some might, although its not magic.

In one minute chess some players make random absurd moves. It's a useful technique when you're opponent is down to a second or two, but some play that way from the beginning. I'd like to think they do not play the same way when their opponent has three days to examine the error.

Nobody has been referring to one minute games in this entire thread. Live chess on standard time controls.