There was a recent discussion here where a beginner was asking on "using chess engines as a beginner". What made the topic interesting was some of the viewpoints of people "established" on here.
It would hardly take a mathematician using an ordinary differential equation to establish that "all is not it seems", given for example peoples un-monitored ratings on a chess server and their performances in monitored/OTB play.
- Joined
- 02 Aug 11
- Moves
- 2648
16 Aug 11
Sanity check!?
When you folks look at someone else's rating do you:
-Check his/her current rating?
-The max rating?
-The average rating?
-Does anyone bother checking the average rating of the opponents of said player?
When all said and done....does a player's rating affect how seriously you take the game?
Originally posted by Eternal StudentThis is very inaccurate, but it's due to the somewhat unique provisional rating system, not the logic of the post. Here's why:
Indeed, an unbeaten player, of, say, 20 or more games, is, in my humble opinion, let us say, of doubtful veracity...
Of course, the persistent, and useless to ask, question naturally arises: Why do they cheat? I mean, what is the benefit?
Honestly (and I here base my answer upon my masters in psychology and many years in the field), these peopl ...[text shortened]... e, the best solution is simply to be aware of the record of who you play and decide accordingly.
All players start here with a "p1200" rating. Any reasonably strong player who joins the site starts off with an artificially low rating.
To make matters worse, extremely few higher rated players will accept challenges from a p1200 player, so our reasonably strong new player has to play players in the 800-1400 range just to get some games and get past the p1200 rating.
It is not at all unreasonable for a player to join and win 20 or even 50 or more games in a row before they get to challenge stronger players. At some point, they hit players who are competitive with them, and they start losing.
Of course, there are othe explanations, such as friends of unequal strength who play a large number of games with a very unequal score, etc, but I think the starting point for the rating system is an easy explanation for winning streaks at the start.
Paul
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by Paul LeggettGood points, which I now take into account. Thank you.
This is very inaccurate, but it's due to the somewhat unique provisional rating system, not the logic of the post. Here's why:
All players start here with a "p1200" rating. Any reasonably strong player who joins the site starts off with an artificially low rating.
To make matters worse, extremely few higher rated players will accept challenges f ...[text shortened]... point for the rating system is an easy explanation for winning streaks at the start.
Paul
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by DiophantusThis is the updated link:
I make that 49 in the space of 14 days. Hardly as extreme as 650 in 24 hours! Impressive though, 3.5 every day on average.
http://www.chess.com/cheating.html
700 players were banned 18 to 19 days ago if you look back.
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by ZygalskiThat begs the question why does chess.com have two versions of the list? The forum list (the first link) is the version I remember as the "official" version from back when cheating discussions were banned in the forums but that list is woefully incomplete if the other one is to be believed. I did check and some well known characters who have been on chess.com since Noah was a lad have definitely vanished and they are in the "new" list so I guess your version is more accurate. I also have to wonder how several of those guys escaped attention so long considering some of the other bannings that have occurred.
This is the updated link:
http://www.chess.com/cheating.html
700 players were banned 18 to 19 days ago if you look back.
I do wonder what chess.com gains by publishing the names of four cheats from 19 days ago in the "official" forum location but publishes umpteen in a hidden list. Why not just make the hidden list public? I looked but couldn't find an obvious link to your list.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by Eternal StudentYour post was logical, but the quirky nature of the RHP rating system starting point is just different than the "default" assumptions- which I also made when I started here!
Good points, which I now take into account. Thank you.
The nature of things sort of bothered me when I started, which is why I make a point to never decline a challenge from anyone regardless of rating, as long as the time control is something I can live with.
So many players are only willing to "play up", but that kind of thinking presumes that there are others who are willing to "play down".
I just assume that anyone lower than me is on the way up, and it's my job to make the journey worthwhile- and make them earn it!