Losing rating points is easier than gaining them??

@SchizoSi the higher you climb in rating the harder it is to earn points , chess isn't easy it gets "easier" the more you learn, and practice it.. when you settle into a rating range you will go up and back down, until one day you go just a little higher and fall a little less lower.. then one day you will see a huge gain and settle into the next rating range.. its like that all the way to the top, all the way to the bottom

also in the queens gambit , they used actual games from history there's youtube videos on some of the games in the show... i have never seen the show but have seen the games...

@dooeyDecimal said in #11:

@SchizoSi the higher you climb in rating the harder it is to earn points , chess isn't easy it gets "easier" the more you learn, and practice it.. when you settle into a rating range you will go up and back down, until one day you go just a little higher and fall a little less lower.. then one day you will see a huge gain and settle into the next rating range.. its like that all the way to the top, all the way to the bottom

also in the queens gambit , they used actual games from history there's youtube videos on some of the games in the show... i have never seen the show but have seen the games...
I don't mean to repeat myself or sound deaf , I think there is a disparity between losing and gaining .when I win good I want the same reward as losing xxx I repeat I think there is a disparity between losing more and gaining less xxx

if you win someone as strong as you you will gain just as much as you lose. if play weaker you stand to lose more that you stand to win. And obviously if play someone stronger you stand to gain more

I guess you can call disparity. While I call sound adaptive algorithm where gain/loss is inversely proportional likelihood of winning. as it clearly should be

@SchizoSi i don't think your understanding... but just focus on the inequality of things because thats healthy

@petri999 said in #13:

if you win someone as strong as you you will gain just as much as you lose. if play weaker you stand to lose more that you stand to win. And obviously if play someone stronger you stand to gain more

I guess you can call disparity. While I call sound adaptive algorithm where gain/loss is inversely proportional likelihood of winning. as it clearly should be
Yes but now days an 1100 -1300 just as strong as me a 1500 and I can beat a 1700 -1800 occaisionally.sooooo................. Like I'm saying everyone stronger .I have no argument I understand it's an algorithm I get it ,I really do I'm just saying with everyone getting better plus points could be kinder , I have no argument maybe ratings could be more like question marks all the time just a bit more encoiraging xxx

Who said that humans are bound to always keep reinventing the wheel. might be whole pool evolution, no?

with low demographics of the past, it seemed acceptable that chess knowledge and quality was on an upward trend with its history being recorded. But how to measure such notion with a purely coevolution based (competitive pairs) measure system.

what should an external referential be in order to quantify or estimate some agreeable difference?

The same question goes for engine. (actually i asked myself first there, but i realized that is emulating human chess traditions, in many ways, at the measure level).

We could make absolute reference with engine sure... But then we would need to use same engine for ever. And I am very sure there has not deflation in ratings lately. on contrary I would 1500 today is weaker than 1500 before pandemic. Proving that would take effort well beyond what I am willing put into it

Play against stronger players. You’ll gain more points for beating them, and you’ll lose less if you lose, assuming they are 100 points stronger than you or something like that. If you play against weak opponents relative to your rating and you lose, you’ll lose a bunch of points but unfortunately you won’t gain much for beating them since the rating differential would suggest that your win was expected.

Don't focus on the rating focus on the board. Understanding why you lost a game is way more important then how your rating number moved.
I throw a game today because I moved the queen to the wrong square. I was in a winning position up a pawn but I was to afraid for my opponent to get a perpetual and draw the game so I moved queen to wrong square, lost the pawn and then lost the game. The important thing is not how much rating I lost, the important thing is to learn from the mistakes so I can perform better in the future. And when I get better my rating will go up over time. Sometimes I will be tired or play to much and rating will drop but over time it goes up until it hits a plateau.

No rating progress?
That means no games against the tough guys.
If the ratings are capped, then its like a snowball system, which is sad news for anyone wanting to play chess....