Only Chess
07 Oct 05
08 Oct 05
Who cares. Give Umalakas a break. I would be shocked as well to Nyxie's graph if I didn't think she was that good all along. The improvement could be a multiple of things. #1. Winning a bunch of games all at once either by mating or resigning, has happened to me quite a bit and my rating shot up then went down. #2. Watching and analyzing the games more closely can win games against higher rated players, or at least helps. #3. A cut down of games as well as study an or more analysis of positions, the cut down could mean that she was a 1600-1700 player all along and had just been playing to many games and the study can easily account for the 200 point increse from there. So it's not so much of a 500 point increse as it is 200. In my opinion at least.
08 Oct 05
Originally posted by GalaxyShieldI don't mean to be rude, but she increased her games, she didn't cut down. So 3 cannot be considered. And I don't see how 1 and 2 can cause 600 pts of distortion, the game isn't that easy, you know this! Even if she were really a 1600 rated player not giving her best effort, 1600 to just under 2000 (and it's going up higher!) in just under 3 months, still miraculous! 400 pts in 3 months, bejesus! Considering she was stagnant around 1500 for soooo long. And consider also, it's much more difficult to go from, say 1600 to 2000, then say 1200 to 1600.
Who cares. Give Umalakas a break. I would be shocked as well to Nyxie's graph if I didn't think she was that good all along. The improvement could be a multiple of things. #1. Winning a bunch of games all at once either by mating or resigning, has happened to me quite a bit and my rating shot up then went down. #2. Watching and analyzing the games mor ...[text shortened]... se from there. So it's not so much of a 500 point increse as it is 200. In my opinion at least.
Even when you give her the benefit of the doubt under any strange circumstance, it's a world record of improvement, I must say. I doubt simply game management, mass opponent resigning, and finding time for greater analysis (despite playing more games) can explain most of it. She did something AMAZING (legal or illegal) to get that kinda improvement, luck and circumstance can't explain it alone.
For the record, I respect you as a player and your wisdom. It's possible she was just fooling around, like playing well below her capability PURPOSELY for one year, then dicides, "hey, I'll play like my normal master self" and whoompt! And also for the record, I don't like players who do that, but it's legal, sleezy, but legal.
08 Oct 05
Originally posted by UmalakasHow about you ask her about it instead of talking about it behind her back.
I don't mean to be rude, but she increased her games, she didn't cut down. So 3 cannot be considered. And I don't see how 1 and 2 can cause 600 pts of distortion, the game isn't that easy, you know this! Even if she were really a 1600 rated player not giving her best effort, 1600 to just under 2000 (and it's going up higher!) in just under 3 months, st ...[text shortened]... And also for the record, I don't like players who do that, but it's legal, sleezy, but legal.
08 Oct 05
Originally posted by UmalakasHmm, good points. But, if you joined on sept. 7th, how would you know she incresed her games over the last 3 months? I mean, you're probably right, I'm just curious.
I don't mean to be rude, but she increased her games, she didn't cut down. So 3 cannot be considered. And I don't see how 1 and 2 can cause 600 pts of distortion, the game isn't that easy, you know this! Even if she were really a 1600 rated player not giving her best effort, 1600 to just under 2000 (and it's going up higher!) in just under 3 months, st ...[text shortened]... And also for the record, I don't like players who do that, but it's legal, sleezy, but legal.
08 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by GalaxyShieldThe graph says the dates of when games are played/finished, so you can somewhat extrapolate. More were played the past 3 months, way more, giving the illusion she dramaticly improved through hard work over the years, but really, she played way less games the past 2 or so and stuck consistantly, for the most part, around 1400-1550. Then these past few months, she played so many games, like on complete steroids, that the amount played these past 3 months is around a little more then half the total of a year when she was around 1400-1550. These 3 months, were she played games at a ratio roughly 4 times higher, her rating shot up to 2000 like a quantom leap!
Hmm, good points. But, if you joined on sept. 7th, how would you know she incresed her games over the last 3 months? I mean, you're probably right, I'm just curious.
Seriously, look at it. It's an interesting graph, that's for sure. It's misleading and can be overlooked as quite normal and natural consistant hill improvement over the years. Then again, I took calculus and spot these abnormalities very quickly in graphs, and this graph is one of the strangest I've seen on RHP. That's just a general observation as a new player with a fresh perspective scouting out others around my skill to play.
There are stranger looking graphs via the naked eye to someone who doesn't know much about graphs, but those are mostly explained by players going inactive and becoming active again, not the case here.
It gets even more interesting when you quickly compare random games at different times wide apart from one another. It's interesting human science none the less.
09 Oct 05
Originally posted by UmalakasWhy do you keep saying that you're not accusing her of cheating, when everything that you type is hinting at it?
The graph says the dates of when games are played/finished, so you can somewhat extrapolate. More were played the past 3 months, way more, giving the illusion she dramaticly improved through hard work over the years, but really, she played way less games the past 2 or so and stuck consistantly, for the most part, around 1400-1550. Then these past few months ...[text shortened]... s at different times wide apart from one another. It's interesting human science none the less.
Just send feedback to the Game Mod team if you feel you must, and leave it out of the forums.
D
09 Oct 05
Originally posted by UmalakasGame 866004 ..Jan 05
Hmmmm, she's gone from a consistant 1400 rated player, to now a high 1900 rated player in less then a month. *scratches head*. Maybe she should give players around her previous strenght advice on the quick miraculous improvement?
Game 1376975 ..sep 05
😵 I gotta get me one of those!
09 Oct 05
Originally posted by GalaxyShieldI know an awful lot of people who do an awful lot of study but i've never witnessed an improvement like that before.
...could mean that she was a 1600-1700 player all along and ... and the study can easily account for the 200 point increse from there. So it's not so much of a 500 point increse as it is 200. In my opinion at least.
09 Oct 05
Originally posted by marinakatombA whole 200 point improvement on a chess site isn't that much. Heck, the first month or two I played here I was only about a 1400 player then in the next few months it jumped up quite a bit. Either way, why are we still talking about this?
I know an awful lot of people who do an awful lot of study but i've [b]never witnessed an improvement like that before.[/b]
09 Oct 05
Originally posted by GalaxyShieldThe difference is that your improvement was due to getting used to the site, and getting a more accurate rating. The same thing happened to me. I was about 1500 after finishing 20 games, but that wasn't an accurate representation of my skill level. I went up to 1800 quickly and stayed there. Nyxie did the same thing, but only after being a 1400 for a long time. I'm not taking any sides here.
A whole 200 point improvement on a chess site isn't that much. Heck, the first month or two I played here I was only about a 1400 player then in the next few months it jumped up quite a bit. Either way, why are we still talking about this?