As MAP of the month last month I am probably one of the people your question is directed towards.
My rating is nver going to reach 1900, for that matter it will never reach 1600. So I have no chance of being in the top 20 rating, not to mention being #1.
However, being MAP of the month player gets you noticed and people start challenging you to games, maybe games which you would not have otherwise got because of your rating.
In the end, I am here to improve my chess (firstly). As a bit of fun last month, not likely to be repeated, I decided to become the most active player.
Enjoy your chess, learn, have fun and become a pawn star.
-mike
Originally posted by robbins11Robbin,
Im new around here , but I've been noticing that everyone seems to place more importance on the number of moves played rather than the rating. Which do you think is more impressive/important. Maybe im just a kid from podunk Alabama that don't know nothin bout nothin.
Rating vs MAP (Most Active Player). Highest rating is very impressive. Map (Most Active Player) is pretty insignificant. Why did you hear a lot about Map and Map War? Because it was fun. I enjoyed it ,Rhymester enjoyed it. The purpose of the site is for folks from all over the world to have fun. Bottom line. Play chess so you enjoy it.
John
King of Map
Ratings vs. Most Active. The way I like to look at it is that there is something for everybody here. If you're good, by all means climb that ladder. Bored and got nothing better to do with your life by all means feel welcome in the MAP club (just kidding JOhn and Andrew). Like to yak, go to the forums and mix it up. Welcome to the site. Kirk
Originally posted by robbins11I am an average/poor player who like to play a lot. My rating was actually over 1700 when I was only playing less then 10 games. The lower rating and higher MAP scores are like inverses. As more you play, the more likely you are to loose! The biggest factor is that players like me do not think especially long time for each move because I would never finish due to the high number of games. I have slowed down a lot, as during my peak I had over 180 active going on at once. I do still play some, but not nearly as much I did in the past.
Im new around here , but I've been noticing that everyone seems to place more importance on the number of moves played rather than the rating. Which do you think is more impressive/important. Maybe im just a kid from podunk Alabama that don't know nothin bout nothin.
Think about the MAP as you were practicing for a blitz tournament, as you know (I hope) when you play blitz, you are not playing as well as you did if you had the time to analyze every situation. It is very addictive and fun.
Try and get hooked. Right now I have slowed down to about 100 moves per day, concequently, my rating has increased slightly.
If you want to play quick games, play me or play players like vaknso, rhymester, T1000(=very good player) and many other players. Since you are from AL, play your KING of MAP, vaknso!
Sincerely,
Harri
a.k.a. Luck
If people are into just moving for the sake of it then I would see that as very sad and pointless. I try to give a fairly decent game and will resign lost causes even though I'm missing out on MAP moves. But remember.. MAP isn't a matter of life and death ... it's much more important than that! 😉
Rhymester
Originally posted by robbins11He's (unfortunately) right: Little reminder: in he forum you see immediately the moves a plaay er made, but not his rating 😉
Im new around here , but I've been noticing that everyone seems to place more importance on the number of moves played rather than the rating. Which do you think is more impressive/important. Maybe im just a kid from podunk Alabama that don't know nothin bout nothin.
and:
Originally posted by Luck
I am an average/poor player who like to play a lot. My rating was actually over 1700 when I was only playing less then 10 games. The lower rating and higher MAP scores are like inverses. As more you play, the more likely you are to loose!
would be interesting to study this: a simlpe regession, calculate a new "rating"...
th
Originally posted by thirecolour o star might be an indication of how long someone has been around, not just how fast they move. I'm hoping that mine will change colour soon, and I rarely play over 10 games.
He's (unfortunately) right: Little reminder: in he forum you see immediately the moves a plaay er made, but not his rating 😉
and:
Originally posted by Luck
[b]I am an average/poor player who like to play a lot. My rating was actually over 1700 when I was only playing less then 10 games. The lower rating and higher MAP scores are like inverses. As ...[text shortened]...
would be interesting to study this: a simlpe regession, calculate a new "rating"...
th
The new rating regression is interesting, but I don't think it would work. You have to add in "minutes person loooked at the screen" or else you'd be discriminating against people who only logged in for 5 minutes/day.
Originally posted by belgianfreakyes, it was just a quick idea. i guess russ has plenty of data, so he could add many variables (also timeouts)... but this is a chess site, not a statstic-board.
The new rating regression is interesting, but I don't think it would work. You have to add in "minutes person loooked at the screen" or else you'd be discriminating against people who only logged in for 5 minutes/day.
(as it would be interesting and I guess easy to figure out: what's the distribution of the first move? at which move is the queen first time moved? how long is a game? ... personal and in general - who does my playing style differ from others? ) .... many many interesting questions. 😉 😀