I have reservations about attaching too much importance to a rating. Whilst I agree that in general a higher rated players advice will be based on solid experience and in this case the rating is an indicator of the quality of the information. But I can think of instances where this alone misleading:
A lower rated player may be passing on a timely snippet of wisdom they have aquired from a master or discovered for themselves at an early stage in their development as a a player.
Some higher rated players have occasional ratings crashes due to resigning a large number of games when they are overloaded - or being beaten by a lower rated engine user or making a series of mistakes after a few too many drinks.
A good player may be using RHP to test gambits or particular lines of play and as a result have an artificially low rating that doesn't reflect their knowledge, ability and experience.
A high rating may have been aquired through cheating.
I think it's also possible to have a very good understanding of some of the principles and ideas within chess without being such a good player and vis a versa; just as you might get a good football manager who can't play too well or a great footballer who is not so good at communicating his ideas.
The best players are not necessarily the best teachers.
A lower rated player may be very talented and their rating might be about to climb.
So I agree with the posts who say they try to judge a post on it's own merit as well as taking a peek at the rating...mine is a lowly 1370 by the way, so the question might be: would a higher rated player agree with this post?😉
I always check because I am a nosey sod
I agree also that several factors can affect a rating so ratings alone do not mean that a post has value or not
Recently I have been playing a lot of league games which bumped my rating from high 1500's to low 1700's
This does not mean that when posting as a 1700 I knew anymore than I do now at low 1600's 🙁
I also agree that if I see an opening used to good effect against me I will play a few games trying it out to see how it fits my game frequently with bad results 🙁
I have been experimenting with black openings that ignore trying to dominate the centre with pawns such as king, queen gambit etc without a lot of success so expect my ratings to drop further
It is still me regardless of my rating but yes I always check others rating
Originally posted by MahoutThis all sounds vaguely familiar.
I have reservations about attaching too much importance to a rating. Whilst I agree that in general a higher rated players advice will be based on solid experience and in this case the rating is an indicator of the quality of the information. But I can think of instances where this alone misleading:
A lower rated player may be passing on a timely snippet ...[text shortened]... 0 by the way, so the question might be: would a higher rated player agree with this post?😉
By the way, does marinakatomb know that you stole his avatar?
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Its very rare i'll bother to check someones rating, I tend to judge by the quality of the contents in the post. I dont need to see someones rating to tell if a post is good or bad.
Looking at peoples is pretty deceptive since people games are rarely level.......what I mean is say someone is 1800, well they might really be 1600 positionally, 1700 opening wise, 2000 tactically and then say 1800 endgames. Not only do the levels of the general areas change the value of the independent parts will probably be different, someone might completely understand king and pawn endings while not have much of a clue about rook endings. Im sure theres 1500s on this site that know more about things like the KIA or most responces to 1.d4 than I do.
At the end of the day judge on the post and not the rating.
Ratings don't always mean much.Online ratings even have very little meaning.
I know a guy rated in the 1500-1600 range OTB.He's an expert on the sicilian najdorf.At least,I think it's the najdorf,not 100% sure as I can't tell a sicilian from an italian 😉 He's also an expert at the scotch game.Studied these openings all his life(he's now 40 or so) and repeatedly draws masters with them and sometimes even beats them in simuls.Play any other opening and he's pretty much left clueless.
If I were a 2000 player and he tells me something about those lines I'd definately pay attention.
Originally posted by Grandmousterfunny how you contradict yourself. first you say low rated players impart pearls of wisdom, then you put them down. and to top that, you're 1600 yourself. (btw, a couple of months ago, when you insisted you were really 1800+, I said your games look like you're a 1600 with a lucky peak over 1700. now you're 1652, and your graph shows I was exactly right.)
I have imparted pearls of wisdom i got from my chess teachers, all masters, but get flamed anyway, especialy from 1600's who think they know everything, and i dont.
although you've given me and rahim a raise, last time we were "bunch of 1500's who know nothing" and now we're 1600's. yay for us! 😀
maybe if you got off your high horse, stop being so touchy an get offended by any little criticism you get, you could see that your 'pearls of wisdom' might not be as precious as you think.
jeez, you new yorkers should supposedly be thick-skinned, but I guess it's just a myth.
Originally posted by MahoutDefinetly.
I have reservations about attaching too much importance to a rating. Whilst I agree that in general a higher rated players advice will be based on solid experience and in this case the rating is an indicator of the quality of the information. But I can think of instances where this alone misleading:
A lower rated player may be passing on a timely snippet ...[text shortened]... 0 by the way, so the question might be: would a higher rated player agree with this post?😉
I don't always do it, just randomly with new player or if I think someone is really really wrong of it I dislike thier posting for some reason.
I play on another site where I know some 1900 OTB players that are rated 2400+, and I know a couple that are 1800+ OTB, but only 1400-1500 here. I think you have to look at a few games played by the person if you want to judge how good they might be. The ratings are sometimes whacked out on various servers.
Originally posted by masscatIsn't a rating only a rating amongst a pool of players so 1800 in RHP would not necessarily be the same as 1800 OTB and possibly different again to an 1800 on another site. Does the large number of RHP players make the rating more "in line" with an OTB rating? Maybe someone has the maths know how to answer this.
I play on another site where I know some 1900 OTB players that are rated 2400+, and I know a couple that are 1800+ OTB, but only 1400-1500 here. I think you have to look at a few games played by the person if you want to judge how good they might be. The ratings are sometimes whacked out on various servers.
I've also noticed that some CC players are much weaker when playing OTB and some good OTB players are much weaker in CC - just as you might get a runner who is good at long distance but not so good at 100 metres.
Originally posted by MahoutI don’t know the math but I don’t think you can correlate the ratings. For me, when I play correspondence chess, I always play from the White side and move pieces around freely. I think this hampered me OTB. When I play Black, things just don’t look “right.” Also, I think it has hampered my ability to visualize the position ahead. The result is I play much better CC. Relevant to the point you make about the “pool”, my rating at another site is 2100+, in the CCLA (postal 2000+), and here 1500+. As I haven’t played a serious OTB game for 20 years, I can’t say, but would guess around 1800. So, how good am I really? I don’t really know.
Isn't a rating only a rating amongst a pool of players so 1800 in RHP would not necessarily be the same as 1800 OTB and possibly different again to an 1800 on another site. Does the large number of RHP players make the rating more "in line" with an OTB rating? Maybe someone has the maths know how to answer this.
I've also noticed that some CC players are ...[text shortened]... - just as you might get a runner who is good at long distance but not so good at 100 metres.
Originally posted by masscatyour rating seems to be low because you play against so low rated opponents. 28 wins, 5 losses, and somehow you still manage to stay at 1550 flat. 🙂 maybe you should try playing against 1600's or higher to see how it'll turn out...
...and here 1500+. As I haven’t played a serious OTB game for 20 years, I can’t say, but would guess around 1800. So, how good am I really? I don’t really know.