06 Feb 06
Depends on your natural apptitude for the game. Some people start playing and in 6 months they're monsters, playing at expert level. Some people play for their entire lives and never get better than 1200 rating or so, regardless of their devotion to the game and their intelligence. (Robert Oppenheimer is a good example, he was a terrible player, despite being a genious and loving chess).
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by NordlysThis is my theory. People who are subs here and play lots of game have a higher rating rhp then their OTB rating.
I know there are quite a few people whose OTB ratings are higher than their RHP ratings, which always amazes me. But you are not a beginner, so I may still be right. I think experience plays a much bigger role in OTB play. In CC, you can make up for your lack of experience by taking your time to explore a position, and by using databases. I still need to thi ...[text shortened]... I am very poor at visualizing, and I don't do well under time pressure, so CC is ideal for me.
People who are not subs play less games and thus have a lower rhp rating compared to OTB.
Non subs:
Me OTB 1706 but i will be going up after i'm done this tourney this month. rhp 1700
Welsh...... Fide 1900 or something you said Rhp 1730ish
As for the subs:
say Ark13 he says OTB 1500 and rhp 1900
Just a theory.
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by RahimKI'd say playing less games helps your rating (once you achieve your stable grade here), as you spend more time per move, as you dont have so many games to play.
This is my theory. People who are subs here and play lots of game have a higher rating rhp then their OTB rating.
People who are not subs play less games and thus have a lower rhp rating compared to OTB.
Non subs:
Me OTB 1706 but i will be going up after i'm done this tourney this month. rhp 1700
Welsh...... Fide 1900 or something you said Rhp 1730ish
As for the subs:
say Ark13 he says OTB 1500 and rhp 1900
Just a theory.
It may not be the case, but it is a thought...
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by welsharnieYa that's what doesn't make sense to me.
I'd say playing less games helps your rating (once you achieve your stable grade here), as you spend more time per move, as you dont have so many games to play.
It may not be the case, but it is a thought...
More games, equals less time thus lower rating. But more games equals more points = higher rating.
wormwood explained it to me nicely and my theory sort of makes sense to me.
Say you're 1800, so you start 20 or so games vs 1500 players. You will all of those and don't need so much time because your so much better. You have 10 more games going vs say 1800 players and you spend more time on those. So basically you get all your points from the 1500 players and then some from the 1800 players, so you always have a steady stream of points coming in.
If you say 1900 then you play ppl 300 points below etc...
Just a thought.
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by RahimKWait, I got the perfect example.
Ya that's what doesn't make sense to me.
More games, equals less time thus lower rating. But more games equals more points = higher rating.
wormwood explained it to me nicely and my theory sort of makes sense to me.
Say you're 1800, so you start 20 or so games vs 1500 players. You will all of those and don't need so much time because your so much be ...[text shortened]... s coming in.
If you say 1900 then you play ppl 300 points below etc...
Just a thought.
Look at me, i'm at 1700 and playing against 1700 player about. Say I got 6 games going vs 1700 players and I spend a lot of time on those.
Now say I was allowed to start 4 more games to get a total of 10 games. I would start 4 games vs 1400 player or around there spend like 1 min on each move and pick up easy points of those. So really I wouldn't spend that much extra time on the extra 4 games you know?
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by RahimK... until you reach your true rating, and your average results over time from now on keep your grade at roughly that level... maybe 1750, maybe 2000 (although i dislike seeing people with ratings higher than that of the strongest person they have beaten... doesnt seem right to me). Take Mamedyarov, he's 2700+, yet I have heard he has never beaten a 2700 player! (May not be true, but that what I heard).
Ya that's what doesn't make sense to me.
More games, equals less time thus lower rating. But more games equals more points = higher rating.
wormwood explained it to me nicely and my theory sort of makes sense to me.
Say you're 1800, so you start 20 or so games vs 1500 players. You will all of those and don't need so much time because your so much be ...[text shortened]... s coming in.
If you say 1900 then you play ppl 300 points below etc...
Just a thought.
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by welsharnieI recall someone writing about something similar to this.
... until you reach your true rating, and your average results over time from now on keep your grade at roughly that level... maybe 1750, maybe 2000 (although i dislike seeing people with ratings higher than that of the strongest person they have beaten... doesnt seem right to me). Take Mamedyarov, he's 2700+, yet I have heard he has never beaten a 2700 player! (May not be true, but that what I heard).
Some player could never get to master but was really close but he would direct tourney and when they were short a player, he would join and pick up 1 and 2 points here and there an eventually got to master. He doesn't play master though. Just like his nice high rating. O look i'm a master, etc...
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by Another BalvenieYa it makes sense but I know several players whose OTB rating is higher then on here. Btw, they are all non subs if that means anything.
Being able to analyze the board, refer to notes, and take a lot of time moving I can see how RHP ratings would be higher than OTB.
Thanks everyone for your suggestions. I have already located some books!
06 Feb 06
1 edit
You learn best through your own mistakes, if you try to play positionally you may not understand your mistakes so just concentrate on playing actively, get all your pieces out and see what they can do. The mistakes you make playing like this will be obvious to you and you'll learn the basics quickly.
I learned a lot playing blitz, too, all tactical knowledge admittedly but it serves me well.
Good luck!
... I should say, however, the above does not mean you should ignore positional factors completely. I'm not for a minute saying 'get your queen out quick and push those pawns in front of your king'!
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by NordlysI've played exactly 4 unofficial games otb during the 6 months since I started chess. I peaked at 1608 here after 4 months, but my rating has settled in the 1500's since. I play almost exclusively at rhp, with 65 blitz-games and 12 standards (about 20-35min max) at fics. so you could probably say I'm where I am solely because of rhp. (the 1600 peak was before I played any games at fics.)
Okay. I guess children would have problems getting there in half a year here as well. It would be interesting how far the same people who became OTB 1500 in around 6 months would have come here if they had played here instead of OTB. Or how far I would have come OTB if I had played OTB instead of here...
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by welsharnieGarry Kasparov's rating is higher than the strongest person he's beaten. 🙄
(although i dislike seeing people with ratings higher than that of the strongest person they have beaten... doesnt seem right to me). Take Mamedyarov, he's 2700+, yet I have heard he has never beaten a 2700 player! (May not be true, but that what I heard).
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by RahimKI am a sub and I have a 1675 OTB and I'm a 1500 here.
This is my theory. People who are subs here and play lots of game have a higher rating rhp then their OTB rating.
People who are not subs play less games and thus have a lower rhp rating compared to OTB.
Non subs:
Me OTB 1706 but i will be going up after i'm done this tourney this month. rhp 1700
Welsh...... Fide 1900 or something you said Rhp 1730ish
As for the subs:
say Ark13 he says OTB 1500 and rhp 1900
Just a theory.
To the people who say more time (cc) = higher rating this is blatantly false. If your opponent also spends more time, then whereis the gain? Also where are these extra points coming from, do we just have more people with sub 1000 ratings constantly giving us points before they quit and are replaced by someone else. My understanding of the rating system is that if you gain x points for a win, then your opponent lost x points. Hence, it's not really possible for everyones ratings to be higher unless you start people with a provisional rating above 1200. In the end though, they are 2 seperate rating pools and it's very difficult to compare them.
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by zebanoHighest rating for Zebano within 30 days, 1714.
I am a sub and I have a 1675 OTB and I'm a 1500 here.
To the people who say more time (cc) = higher rating this is blatantly false. If your opponent also spends more time, then whereis the gain? Also where are these extra points coming from, do we just have more people with sub 1000 ratings constantly giving us points before they quit and are replaced by ...[text shortened]... In the end though, they are 2 seperate rating pools and it's very difficult to compare them.
So forget that 1500 idea.
As for more time in cc it's only the same if both parties use equal amounts of time. I spend more time now days, my opponents spend less time and my rating goes up and there's goes down. That's were those point go. Since I started playing seriously on here and taking my time, using my timebank when I need to my rating has gone from 1550 to 1700.
The extra points are coming from people who sign on here and then lose points and quit. But I don't get what your getting at with the extra points?
You keep beating people and your rating goes up and thiers goes down, you don't need extra points for that. Its 1 to 1 like you said.