26 ( +1 | -1 )
I have received a message from dpcjsr, he is looking for opponents to establish good rating on GameKnot (he has USCF 2030 rating). Please challenge him if you are above 1800. Thanks!
15 ( +1 | -1 )
Another good player
Another good player:
71 ( +1 | -1 )
Ratings for new players
How about assigning a rating to a new player that actually corresponds their real-life rating ?
If this guy told you he's 2030 (and you obviosly believe him), isn't it simpler just to make him start at 2030, instead of making his way from the bottom, battling hordes of 1200's and 1600's ?
Generally speaking, I think every new player who has an established rating at some federation should be allowed to start at that rating.
Of course some will cheat and give false ratings, but I believe they'll be exposed very quickly - if someone wants to be a "2200" for a short time, and then drop rapidly after losing 10 games to 1800 players, that's their problem ...
30 ( +1 | -1 )
Such a player wouldn't have to battle "hordes" of 1200's and 1600's. If you start at 1200 and win 5 straight games against 1600's, your provisional rating goes up to 2000. If he's so haughty that he considers playing even 5 lower-rated players to be beneath him, that's his problem.
63 ( +1 | -1 )
Yes, but if you start with a provisional rating of 1200, finding even a 1600 player to play against could be very difficult - after all, THEY might consider him too weak to play against!
So first he has to play some 1200 opponents, build himself up to 1600, and only then he can play 1600 opponents, and he didn't suffer an "industrial accident" and won all games, only then can he start playing opponent of his own level.
And my question is: WHY SHOULD THIS BE NECESSARY ? If a new user comes to GK and "solemnly swears" his rating is 2030, would it hurt anyone if he was simply assigned a 2030 rating ? I think not ...
8 ( +1 | -1 )
second paragraph misses a word:
.....and IF he didn't suffer an "industrial accident" ....
56 ( +1 | -1 )
Let me just cite my own experience. I started at 1200 like everybody else. My first five games (all picked up as open games) were against opponents with ratings of 1165, 1200, 1165, 1504, 1365. Result: provisional rating of 1726. With a rating of 1726 you have no difficulty in getting games with higher-rated players. Speaking for myself, I would resent it if these gentry were to stroll in with a rating of 2000+ just because they belong to other organisations.
113 ( +1 | -1 )
Why would you resent this ?
Let's assume we have a person who played many games in an established chess federation, for example USCF. And in those games he was consistently performing at a 2000+ level. Presumably, he wasn't playing at this level from birth - he had to advance and progress from scratch. But, over a period of time, he proved that his playing level indeed corresponds to a 2000+ rating.
And now that person moves to a new organization - let's say, GK. And that new organization decides to give him an INITIAL rating of 2000+, instead of making him to progress from scratch again.
I am honestly interested to hear why would you resent this. Maybe if you'll explain the source of your resentment to this idea I will be able to understand you better. Because right now, frankly, I don't understand the reasons of your objection.
PS: accepting ratings from previous organizations is considered to be "normal practice" in the real world. For example, if a Russian chessplayer holding a Master rank moves to Israel, the Israeli chess federation will award him an initial rating of 2200. Many other examples are available.
38 ( +1 | -1 )
Because he would be given a rating on GameKnot that he has not EARNED on GameKnot. The fact that such abuses go on elsewhere is no reason to defend their unfairness.
One probable result of such a change on GameKnot would be that many players outside the privileged circle would depart. This would include me, even though I'm a paid member.
82 ( +1 | -1 )
Let Him Start From Scratch.
That's the only way we could measure him up whether his heart and devotion belongs to GK Family. There are lots of players here who possess master's strength, who ate dirt and absorbed bloody blows before attaining 2000-level.
Favoritism is ultimately a dangerous precedent.
What is USCF 2030 rating anyway? It's nothing. Even you pals (ZDRAK & PHILARETUS) can beat him anytime you please. He does not even mention his true name such that we could vouch the veracity of his declaration!
A bit of advice, pals... A "stamped" strong player does not and will not disclose his real strength for obvious reason. LET HIS GAMES DEPICT HIS REAL STRENGHT.
To you my brother "DPCJSR", you should play at once!!! Don't wait for higher-rated opponents to challenge you. They won't drop an eye on you.
With due apology.....
99 ( +1 | -1 )
I understand now. You view a rating as something you have to "earn" in some way, while I view it simply as a measure of strength. If you perform at a 2000 rating in USCF tournament games, odds are you will perform at the same strength at tournament games held on Gameknot, ICC, FIDE, the Israeli Chess Federation, or the Zimbabwe Chess Federation.
In your opinion, every single of those rating has to be "earned" from scratch. What can I say, that's a lot of earning to do, especially for a player who is a member of several (National, Internation and Internet) organizations. In fact, I am pretty sure that a lot of proven strong players refrain from becoming GK members due to the fact of having to start at 1200, while at any other chess federation (and many internet servers) they'd be assigned their true rating.
I am sorry that you perceive assigning rating to players as "unfairness".
The disagreement between us is so wide that I'm afraid I cannot continue this discussion with you.
52 ( +1 | -1 )
We all have struggled to achieve our rating and if a player is so strong why not challenge some 1600-1700 players and they are up at 2000-2100 right away. Then they can challenge some 2100 players and after 20 games they have a solid rating.
Maybe, since I do not play OTB yet, I could walk into a chessclub saying 'hey guys- I beat most 1900 players I want a 2000 rating'.
I think when you view it from that point it is rather ridiculous isn't it?
4 ( +1 | -1 )
kick butt ! enjoy the site.
28 ( +1 | -1 )
the only thing that is ridiculous in your example is that you don't understand that GK ratings are unofficial, while USCF ratings are official. Therefor, the USCF of course will not accept GK ratings, but there is IMO no reason why it cannot work the other way around....
16 ( +1 | -1 )
I think most players....
.....would view a chess rating as a measure of strength that has to be earned. It's not analogous to just standing on scales to have your weight measured.
37 ( +1 | -1 )
but shouldn't it be our goal that all players started on common grounds and prooved their ability?
I understand the difference between unofficial and official.
I fully agree that it would be easier but I do not see the grief in playing five games against 1500-1700 players to get a 2000 rating and then meet the top? I don't think it has scared away so many players...if any.
14 ( +1 | -1 )
What's meant by calling....
.....the USCF 'official'? It's just a club that makes rules for its members. It's neither more nor less 'official' than GameKnot.
130 ( +1 | -1 )
There are three points against your proposal.
1) GK rating system is not Elo system, and GK ratings aren't comparable with other structures, like FIDE or USCF, ratings. So, if the new player is an international master rated 2400 FIDE, there's no point in giving him a 2400 GK rating, since they're not related.
2) In any chess rating system in the world, the enter rating is calculated from the results obtained in his first games. The same happens here at GK, where the 1200 figure is only illusory and used only for games between two players in their first 5 games; otherwise the provisional rating is calculated from the results obtained vs. rated players.
The only exceptions to point 2 are some subsidiary federations, like correspondence federations, where they use an Elo rating system and try to follow their country ratings, so a new player may get a provisional rating identical to his OTB rating. Another exception is when a master moves to another country, like in your example: the new federation may give him a master rating, not in all federations though, but consider that OTB master level is comparable for most countries.
3) OTB rating has nothing to do with correspondence (or turn based web chess, that's the same) rating. It was already discussed in other threads.
3 ( +1 | -1 )
A month later...
dpcjsr has a rating of: 933!
And is not playing.
35 ( +1 | -1 )
At closer examination however it turns out that all his losses are either:
a. Time outs in equal (or better) positions
b. Resignations in positions which are not actually lost
In fact, I have failed to find even one game where he had a clearly worse position. Probably he just got fed up with this site one day and decided to leave. It happens.
23 ( +1 | -1 )
Not to mention....
.....that hijodelmatador, who responded to the appeal for higher-rated opponents, had his time wasted.
I hope that this will be the last of such appeals.
25 ( +1 | -1 )
ABOUT CHESS COMRADE DPCJSR?
IF HIS USCF RATING IS(2030)AN EXPERT IN THE UNITED STATES THEN IF HE IS AS GOOD AS HE CLAIMS THEN HE WILL HAVE TO PROVE IT!SO IF HE IS AS HE CLAIMED?HIS GAMEKNOT CHESS RATING IN DUE TIME?WILL BE AROUND
(2202-2230)OR NO HIGHER THAN(2250)!
151 ( +1 | -1 )
I appreciate what you're saying.
I've worked through the initial 1200 rating and don't think it is an unreasonable burden.
On the other hand -
I've often asked good players that I've met from other organizations to see if they would like Gameknot.
Even if Gameknot would not be their primary focus - it is a great place to play chess.
But then I always have to add the addendum -
"You will not at first be able to play the people you want to play. At first you will be rated at only 1200 and have to build your rating be defeating them."
I don't think this encourages those players to come to Gameknot. And I don't think it does the other players at Gameknot any benefit. After all, if yoiu defeat a player who should be rated Gameknot 2500, but is only rated 1200, you might just have played the game of your life but only obtain a few rating points.
What would be the harm of letting players new to Gameknot start with the rating from their previous organization (if that is a decent organization - not talking about Pogo or Yahoo now).
I think I could attract more good players to this site if that happened. I think it would also be fairer to the regular players at Gameknot.
Gameknot is growing into the international community of chess (see the CCLA vs Gameknot challenge). That being said, it would also be to the benefit of Gameknot to recognize the accomplishments of players from other organizations.
79 ( +1 | -1 )
ALL CHESS COMRADES MUST ACCOMPLISH THERE OWN CHESS RATING ON GAMEKNOT VALIDATING THERE STRENGTH BASED ON THE GAMEKNOT RATING SYSTEM!REMEMBER NOW IF A FIDE MASTER COMES ON GAMEKNOT WITH A(2400)CHESS RATING HIS REAL GAMEKNOT RATING WOULD BE AT LEAST
(2600)AND GETTING THAT RATING TITLE WITHOUT PLAYING A SINGLE GAMEKNOT CHESS COMRADE WOULD BE UNFAIR TO THE OTHER CHESS COMRADES ON HERE!YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH
YOUR STRENGTH QUICKLY IF YOU PLAY MANY GAMES AND WIN THEM!ALL OF THEM IF YOUR AS GOOD AS THEY SAY THEY ARE!IF FISCHER COMES ON HE STARTS AS A(1200)RATED PLAYER AND GUESS WHAT?IF FISCHER COMES ON GAMEKNOT HE WILL SOONER OR LATER PLAY THE TOP PLAYERS AND BEAT THEM ALL AND GET A HIGH RATING!
7 ( +1 | -1 )
Didnt Brunetti say he was 1900 FIDE or was that someone else?
129 ( +1 | -1 )
Well, if all players start at 1200,
so be it... I am fairly new at Gameknot, and I
played my share of lower rated players to get to
the point that I am at now.
I didn't see it as a burden.. I met several players of so-called lower ratings that played very well. And I had the opportunity to meet some very nice people along the way.
It depends on your focus.. ratings do not mean that much to me, other than as a general indicator of how my game is progressing.. and if everyone goes through the same procedure, they will very soon
meet and play people of their own playing strength.
The fact that I started at 1200 here did not deter me in the least, because of the comraderie, the forums, and other very good points about Gameknot.. I was willing to be patient.. and patience is something that must be present if you are to succeed here or in correspondence chess in general.
It might even be said that if a player cannot wait a few short weeks before they play "good" players, they will probably not last very long here anyway.
Let the system stand at the status quo.. it has in place a challenge system, so that if a player wishes, he can challenge players of higher ratings straight out of the gate.. and many of them will accept.. myself included.
thanks for listening :-)
17 ( +1 | -1 )
SOONER OR LATER IN GENERAL!
YOU WILL SEE A LEVELING OFF OF YOUR PLAYING STRENGTH BASED ON YOUR NATURAL SKILL UNTIL THE WARP-DRIVE JUMP KICKS IN!THATS WHEN YOU'LL SEE IMPROVEMENT!
106 ( +1 | -1 )
1200 winning against 2500
by math it means that after 1 win and 4 looses against 2500 rated player you would be:
2260 is not "a few rating points"!
This system we have right now is good. What is important to understand is that if you are a really strong player, you should play your first 5 games against opponents rated above 1500 and play other 15 games against opponents rated around 1800+.
This is "rating management" scheme :-).
Copyrighted by zoobrenok. Price to use is 16 rating points in GK currency :-).
nottop, just for you I have an exclusive offer - as long as you promise to mention my name, you are free to share this "rating management" scheme with anyone in the world making them to like GK :-). I will submit my bill for what you get free to Mike :-)
13 ( +1 | -1 )
1) To begin at a higher rating like 1500 or 1600.
2) To have a quick test system for beginners.
34 ( +1 | -1 )
A simple suggestion:
1. Let Mike calculate the average rating of all ACTIVE Gameknot members (my unscientific guess is that this will be around 1500-1600, and surely above 1200)
2. Assign this rating as the starting rating for new players.
Seems much fairer than the (totally arbitrary) number of 1200
72 ( +1 | -1 )
A little point
Beginning rating is of no importance :)
Being it 1200, 500 or 3000, your rating will be based ONLY on opponents' ratings. Look at zoobrenok's above example.
Well, this is not totally true when a new player (during his first 4 games) plays another new player. But I think that such games should not be rated.
A final formula: provisional rating after 5th to 20th game can be simply calculated by:
rating=average opponents' rating + score*800/number of games - 400
In the zoobrenok's above example, rating=2500+1*800/5-400=2260
51 ( +1 | -1 )
re: A little point
Your ability to find good opponents will however be based ONLY on your rating. Ok, mostly on your rating.
Most strong players will be reluctant to play a 1200 opponent, but wouldn't mind an 1800 - simply because they have more to gain from meeting an 1800-opponent, while against 1200 they have nothing to gain and a lot to lose. Which was the entire point of the previous discussion, and you seem to insist to miss it ...
17 ( +1 | -1 )
I agree with Zdrak
Nobody wants to play with a 1200 player. You can see that in Start Game, where you have the posibility of avoid it selecting 1201 as rating limit.
105 ( +1 | -1 )
choosing the average rating of all players has 4 little objections:
1. it has no "scientific" value, because the unknown strength of the new player cannot be based on the strength of other players
2. the value should be recalculated from time to time, since it may change
3. this would (unfairly) alter a running system
4. the average is actually around 1300, and this value won't change things too much.
If the main point is to allow newcomers to play top players, the solutions is to gain some rating and then challenge them; if the newcomer can't reach a 1500/1800 value, it means that he has not the strength to play a somewhat interesting game with a top player. Another possibility is to play with someone that doesn't discriminate players by rating (e.g. me).
A radical solution should be not to rate games if your opponent has a provisionl rating. This way the 1200 figure can disappear, while the player is "unrated" until he has played the minimum number of games (currently, 5), like I do for GK Elo ratings (8 games, as FIDE does).
52 ( +1 | -1 )
"If you perform at a 2000 rating in USCF tournament games, odds are you will perform at the same strength at tournament games held on Gameknot, ICC, FIDE, the Israeli Chess Federation, or the Zimbabwe Chess Federation."
Not true. Even official ratings have differences (between national ratings) - for example based on estimates 2000 USCF equals approx 1850 FIDE (ELO). Naturally internet ratings have even bigger differences, not to mention the difference between correspondence and OTB chess.
32 ( +1 | -1 )
What is the problem
If a new player from another chess organisation starts at GK she/he can write that down to her/his profile together with her/his rating.
After that she/he starts challenging some higherlevel players - and playing 5 games can't be that dramatic!
46 ( +1 | -1 )
"Not true. Even official ratings have differences (between national ratings) - for example based on estimates 2000 USCF equals approx 1850 FIDE (ELO). "
Yes, that's a 150 points difference. However in the particular scenario from which the thread was originated, the guy had a rating of 2030 and was assigned a rating of 1200. A difference of 830...
Surely, you realise that 830>150 !? We aren't even talking about the same order of magnitude here, right ?
51 ( +1 | -1 )
Again, the point is that the 1200 starting rating has no real importance. Look at one example: perfectplayer. After only 8 games he has got a very good rating, and played with very strong players. Where's the 1200 gone?
Another remark: OTB ratings are different from correspondence ratings, as already (dozens of times) written. The 2030 OTB player may perform poorly at GK, while a 1500 OTB one may do better.
26 ( +1 | -1 )
whats the big deal
so they have to play some lower rated players. so what? you can get about 40 games at once on here or more. its not like they have to play one then go to the next. They will move up in no time if they are a good player.
132 ( +1 | -1 )
"Surely, you realise that 830>150!? We aren't even talking about the same order of magnitude here, right?"
No need to suggest that I dont know the difference between 150 and 830. My post was a reply to your opinion that 2000 USCF plays on same (2000) level not only in the tournaments of different chess federations, but also in different internet sites. I found your statement untrue and therefore pointed out there are differences even between ratings of (national) chess federations.
My post wasnt an opinion about GK ratings system (the fact that all new players start from 1200, regardless of playing strength).
However, to tell my opinion - IMO there is no exact way to measure the strength of players, especially if we are forced to compare OTB and correspondence chess ratings.
Also, what if ones level is 2000+ before one starts playing OTB? First one has to play many games vs weaker opponents to get national rating (for example 10 games). Then play in tournament where one has certain amount of opponents who have FIDE ELO. Then ones performance against them must be 2000+ to get FIDE ELO. Sure, correspondence games last longer than OTB games, but then again, what if one wants an official correspondence chess rating...