Winning percentage is an inane goal in any competitive activity you are not already at the top of. I'd much rather be a gm with 40% winrate against other gms than have some 80% win rate of players at my current skill. If you are choosing games to increase your winrate, than you are deliberately playing worse players.
Winning percentage goals of chess players
Sort:
Oct 17, 2012
0
#23
@Pandaval9: I agree; striving for an excessively high winning percentage is a waste of potential. On the other hand, winning occasionally against strong opposition, while always pushing oneself to improve, feels much more rewarding. Thanks for contributing!
Oct 17, 2012
0
#24
I don't think win % is a good measure of skill or something to be actively improved. After my first couple of losses I've never even considered it. My win percentage has gone gradually down as I've improved and played better players. It's artificially increased when I enter tournaments and beat players ranked much lower, but this actually harms my play while the win % increases.
I pair myself randomly with people plus or minus 200 points of my rating. Therefore I would expect my wins to losses to be about 50-50. It's actually a little higher which suggests that within that 400 point range there is a slight bias towards being paired with weaker players. (my average opponent rating is also a little below my rating) I think the reason is that opponents who are nearly 200 points above me tend to abort more games than those below me.
The idea of improving your winning percentage is a little non-sensical because a higher winning percentage just means you are generally playing weaker opponents. This can happen when you have progressed up the ratings and haven't played so many games after your rating has stabilised. Beginners may have higher win percentages because they are progressing more rapidly than more experienced players. Very strong players will also have win percentages above 50% because there aren't many players better than them for them to play. Carlsen's win percentage is about 60%, for example.
Oct 17, 2012
0
#26
@iused: I am experiencing a similar trend with new opponents. They tend to be rated lower than me when I request new games with opponents rated 200 points above and below. I'm considering shifting that range to the high end--for example, 50 below to 250 above--in order to get more games with higher-rated opponents.
But remember, this is about having a goal of improving winning percentage, and it can often be in small steps. For example, if someone's winning percentage is 50%, he may strive to win 55%. But in the original post, I illustrated the problem with actually achieving a very high winning percentage (such as 90%). This is highly impractical, because opponents are dynamic and able to practice and improve.
whirlwind2011 wrote:
@Vivinski: Indeed. And once again, I was referring to games that pit one player against insentient, unchanging artificial intelligence, and not those that have players playing against each other, which are competitive by definition.
Even with singleplayer there are often competitions for who can win the fastest or get the most points or whatever.
Oct 17, 2012
0
#28
@ivandh: Very true! I had forgotten about that. I was thinking mainly of casual playing, which is how I played when I was growing up.
My goal at chess has always been 3.5 out of 5 or I considered it not necessarily a failure but not a success. I gave a little wait to who I played, but I expect to play well enough to stay in or win any game. Although my rating had bounced between the mid 1500's to the mid to low 1700's the past 20 years. I don't care if your higher rated or not. I expect to play at least well enough to earn a draw.
You a 5 years late....
I saw that
Nov 5, 2017
0
#32
5 years late or not, I suspect the question is still relevant. One thing I've noticed is that many stronger players (if rating is the standard) are winning most of their games against players well below their rating, and losing most games against players in their rating range. This suggests that certain players have their primary goal to be rated higher and therefore not accepting games against players near their rating. Very often - at least 10-20% of the time - my opponents in live chess will abandon games (before they officially start), and probably many of them do so because they are looking for easier targets to maintain or boost their rating. In short, it seems that players who want to improve their rating will do so by primarily playing lower rated players (and have a higher win %), while those who want to improve their skills will play higher rated players.
Dec 14, 2020
0
#33
I'm still totally a newbie but I always dive into something really hard when I get into it (to a fault actually). I do look at my percentage but it's like everyone has said: it's just for me. I dont even want to say what it is bc thats not what its about. Anything competitive has to be fun whether you lose or win. I think of tennis comparisons bc I have won a few lower rated tennis tournaments. Anything 1v1 with real humans is going to be a good equivalency. Just bc sports and video games have more variables than chess (and by that I mean connection speed, weather cond., etc...). People like to put chess on a different plane bc it is looked at as being pure mind. But if something stresses your mind then it also stresses your body and vice versa. play chess for 6 to 8 hours and tell me it's not physically taxing. Back on topic. Chess has taught me to be a better loser than any other competitive game. I think it's due to the easy access to such a wide range of skill. Obviously that exists in anything but I cant pop online for 30 min and play 5 games of blitz tennis. My 2 cents
Dec 14, 2020
0
#34
Unless you’re really really good or really really bad, your win% will hover at around 50%. The reason is simple, as you get better you will face better players, and unless you get to the far end if the spectrum where there are few players better than you, you will always be facing players of your own skill.
You can game the system a little by setting your challenger rating so that you face more worse players, or accept challenges only from worse players, but generally it should be around 50%.
You can game the system a little by setting your challenger rating so that you face more worse players, or accept challenges only from worse players, but generally it should be around 50%.
winning percentages means little as it depends how strong the opponents are?
lets say you have a 100% winning percentage against class D players and a 75% winning percentage against GMs which is better?
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
Unless you’re really really good or really really bad, your win% will hover at around 50%. The reason is simple, as you get better you will face better players, and unless you get to the far end if the spectrum where there are few players better than you, you will always be facing players of your own skill.
You can game the system a little by setting your challenger rating so that you face more worse players, or accept challenges only from worse players, but generally it should be around 50%.
You can game the system a little by setting your challenger rating so that you face more worse players, or accept challenges only from worse players, but generally it should be around 50%.
Totally true. Another factor is whether you are in a rating range where you play 1500 rated players. Those folks tend to actually be a little stronger on average, bringing your win rate down. And in certain rating brackets, there will be more players towards the lower end, so even if you aren't trying to game the system you may not get challenges evenly distributed around your rating. But in general, worry about the rating, not the win rate.
Vivinski wrote:
MilitaryQuagmire wrote:
Vivinski wrote:
MilitaryQuagmire wrote:
Vivinski wrote:
Videogames not competitive? some videogames are very competitive.
Last time I checked the league of legends world championship, they had millions of prize money, over 200K viewers, they even have an elo rating. The most popular competitive videogames are easily more popular than chess.
The more you know.
And ofcourse before going on my little rant I should have read that this was allready mentioned
What video game has more global players than Chess?
I think your perception is slightly off...
You can't compare them 1:1, because for chess you only need 2 players a board and pieces and maybe a clock.
For videogames, you need a platform (pc or console) the game itself, good internet connection and at least 2 players.
I think it's safe to say that videogames as a whole are more popular than board games as a whole. I'd say that in Korea, starcraft is much more popular than chess.
Seeing that games are the biggest media entertainment branche in the world, outselling music and films, I think your perception might be slightly off
You sound like me in my younger days. Trust me - when you're really into videogames you have this perception that the whole world is becoming consumed by them. I haven't played video games in 5 years and I honestly haven't heard anyone around me even bring them up but maybe once or twice. It's not the all encompassing global pastime that you start to feel it is when it's the central theme of your life.
Nobody cares how good anyone is at any specific video game. Nobody. Every year they just release a new version of every game, rendering the previous one obsolete. There's no standard. It's not like you're gaining any valuable experience or knowledge in playing them either. It's a dead end activity.
Chess has been played for hundreds, upon hundreds of years...all over the world. If I had to spend time getting good at something, why would I get good at say ...Assasin's Creed? You think people are going to care about that in 5-10 years?
Assasin's creed is not a mp game.
I simply disagree with you. Yes the whole world does play videogames. Let's not even delve into the casual gaming market that came with smartphones.
EVERYBODY I know plays games, my dad plays wordfeud and ruzzle, even my atechnical mom who's 56 years old plays games on her smarthphone.
You're also not gaining any valuable experience or knowledge from playing chess, because guess what, chess is.... a game.
I KNOW that people will care about videogames in 5-10 years,
And like I said, I think more people now care about videogames than chess.
The League of Legends Season Two prize pool will feature a record setting $5 million prize pool! That's more than the chess world championship prize pool, and that's ONE game that you can play, for free.
If you think being good at chess is somehow 'better' than being good at counter strike, Halo, LoL, starcraft, or CoD, than that spells elitism to me
*fortnite laughing with 15 million prize pool and weekly tournaments with thousands in prize pool*
If you continue to play with people equal to your elo, your win/lose ratio will always close to 50%. From zero to the top, each extra wins against a lose will determine your win rate based on your average points per game. For example, online chess sites give me 5-6 points when I play with equal opponents. If I think that I start at 1500 points (and the highest rated player on the site is at 3000 points) 3000-1500=1500/5(let's say my average earning points)=300 extra wins. after reaching the top - unless I'm an beast - the win/lose ratio will be close to 50%. The number of matches I play until I reach the top will determine my win rate. The more matches I play, the closer it will be to 50%.
I hibernated from Live Chess for a few months and reemerged about 300-400 elo stronger after grinding Chess bots like Antonio (Originally 1250 Rapid)
Li (2000 rated bot) used to bully me. Now it’s about equal if I focus.
But yeah, my winning percentages for when I first came out of “Hibernation” was about 97%. Went from 1250 to 1400 in a matter of days.
Now my rating is catching up to my performance.
Jan 26, 2023
0
#40
If your long-term win/loss ratio is outside of 43-57%, you're doing something wrong, unless you're an IM or GM. Either you're losing too much because you're blundering often or playing too many opponents who are much stronger than yourself, or you're winning too much by racking up many easy wins against weaker opponents.
My answer to your question. The percentage should be taken relative to yourself only. That is, if you are currently at 50%, then you can go for 60% as a goal. In the same way if someone is at 40% may go for 50% as a goal. In this way it is relative to your own progress. What is not relative is your actual rank which compares you in a solid way versus other players. Cheers.
I agree; that sounds like a good goal, because it's flexible. Thanks!