@tpr I mentioned grandmasters because they get paid for winning tournaments. And for them it is important who will play on which board. Let me ask you, how much have you made from online tournaments? And then what's the difference who plays on 1 board or 2? And I repeat, I wrote about playing on the Internet. A change in rating does not always accurately indicate a change in game strength. There can be many reasons influencing it: for example, fatigue or time trouble. The best way to understand if you have become better is to analyze the game with stockfish, IMHO. Most likely you know better than me, but what does it mean 'change his training schedule'? My trainings are always the same, and never change: find mistakes using the engine and try not to make them again. Endless process
#21
"I mentioned grandmasters because they get paid for winning tournaments"
For a grandmaster, rating is not related to the prize he may or may not win, but rather it is related to getting invited or not and also to his appearance fee. Once a grandmaster sinks below 2500 poverty results...
"And then what's the difference who plays on 1 board or 2?"
Before elo there were vigorous discussions about this. Some were about ego: I am better than X, so I should get board 1. Some were about cheating: Team Y has put a beginner on board 1 against our master.
"There can be many reasons influencing it: for example, fatigue or time trouble."
Fatigue, time management and play in time trouble are also part of strength. That is why all modern grandmasters have a physical training program.
"The best way to understand if you have become better is to analyze the game with stockfish, IMHO. Most likely you know better than me, but what does it mean 'change his training schedule'? My trainings are always the same, and never change: find mistakes using the engine and try not to make them again. Endless process"
Is this a good method? How do you know? Do you make progress? If you do this for a year and your rating stays the same, then something else might be needed. Maybe time management, physical training, endgame study, tactics training...
If you do make progress this way, then you are on the right track.
"I mentioned grandmasters because they get paid for winning tournaments"
For a grandmaster, rating is not related to the prize he may or may not win, but rather it is related to getting invited or not and also to his appearance fee. Once a grandmaster sinks below 2500 poverty results...
"And then what's the difference who plays on 1 board or 2?"
Before elo there were vigorous discussions about this. Some were about ego: I am better than X, so I should get board 1. Some were about cheating: Team Y has put a beginner on board 1 against our master.
"There can be many reasons influencing it: for example, fatigue or time trouble."
Fatigue, time management and play in time trouble are also part of strength. That is why all modern grandmasters have a physical training program.
"The best way to understand if you have become better is to analyze the game with stockfish, IMHO. Most likely you know better than me, but what does it mean 'change his training schedule'? My trainings are always the same, and never change: find mistakes using the engine and try not to make them again. Endless process"
Is this a good method? How do you know? Do you make progress? If you do this for a year and your rating stays the same, then something else might be needed. Maybe time management, physical training, endgame study, tactics training...
If you do make progress this way, then you are on the right track.
@tpr I have no goal to increase my rating, this is indicated in the title. I play because I like the game. It's all. I don't understand the desire of people to get a high rating on the Internet. What's the difference between 1000 or 2000? This does not change anything.
There will still be victories and defeats, at any level, even if you become the world champion. If a person continues to play, then in any case he becomes stronger thanks to experience. You say that there should be progress in the ranking. And I ask, why? Yes, my rating has not grown over the year, perhaps even decreased. So what? I get all the same pleasure from the game as before. If I am interested in some opening or endgame, then I study it. But not in order to increase rating (for what?). It's just because I'm interested in this aspect of the game.
There will still be victories and defeats, at any level, even if you become the world champion. If a person continues to play, then in any case he becomes stronger thanks to experience. You say that there should be progress in the ranking. And I ask, why? Yes, my rating has not grown over the year, perhaps even decreased. So what? I get all the same pleasure from the game as before. If I am interested in some opening or endgame, then I study it. But not in order to increase rating (for what?). It's just because I'm interested in this aspect of the game.
It is only important to me because it makes keeping track of if I am improving or not super easy. Not sure how I would work it out without that number, gut feeling?
Getting better is important to me, proves I am not going senile at least!
My rating does not matter to me from an ambition standpoint other than modestly. Would like to compete once this Covid stuff does one.
We got drugs approved here (UK) yesterday for roll out, so here is hoping.
I do not tend to ogle other peoples ratings or titles with awe either. Just view it as a gap to attempt to bridge somehow.
May be impossible beyond a certain range. I am not a particularly smart guy. But that is a plus point. A game for life. Always something intriguing and new.
Getting better is important to me, proves I am not going senile at least!
My rating does not matter to me from an ambition standpoint other than modestly. Would like to compete once this Covid stuff does one.
We got drugs approved here (UK) yesterday for roll out, so here is hoping.
I do not tend to ogle other peoples ratings or titles with awe either. Just view it as a gap to attempt to bridge somehow.
May be impossible beyond a certain range. I am not a particularly smart guy. But that is a plus point. A game for life. Always something intriguing and new.
#23
Yes chess is a game, it is meant to be fun.
It also is a competitive game. Many people get fun out of the competition.
Most people want to get better at what they do, some are happy if they do not decline too much, some are indifferent. All of that is fine.
The joy the game brings does not increase with rating.
The joy does increase once a player gets rid of blunders, as blundering is no fun at all.
Some players stay at the same level for decades, and if they are fine with that, then that should be fine for everybody else too.
For those who want to get better, rating provides a yardstick to measure that and to eventually decide on a different approach if they do not see the progress they seek.
Yes chess is a game, it is meant to be fun.
It also is a competitive game. Many people get fun out of the competition.
Most people want to get better at what they do, some are happy if they do not decline too much, some are indifferent. All of that is fine.
The joy the game brings does not increase with rating.
The joy does increase once a player gets rid of blunders, as blundering is no fun at all.
Some players stay at the same level for decades, and if they are fine with that, then that should be fine for everybody else too.
For those who want to get better, rating provides a yardstick to measure that and to eventually decide on a different approach if they do not see the progress they seek.
Otb you can win smaller tournaments, club ch, long league games, win some cups, qualify.
Online you define yourself by means of your rating, it‘s all you’ve got.
Online you define yourself by means of your rating, it‘s all you’ve got.
#26
Online you can win arena's, win shields, qualify for the titled arena...
Rating does not define a player, good games do.
The satisfaction comes from the games, not from the rating.
An artist is defined by the works of art he produces, not by the money he gets for these.
Online you can win arena's, win shields, qualify for the titled arena...
Rating does not define a player, good games do.
The satisfaction comes from the games, not from the rating.
An artist is defined by the works of art he produces, not by the money he gets for these.
Back in about 2005 or so when I was deadly serious about chess I had a rating of around 1950 on the ICC playing 20min games.
During a game I made an obvious mouseslip but my opponent refused to takeback.
So what I did was, disconnect which adjourned the game, I then proceeded to lose games on purpose eventually bringing my rating to around 1300, I then resumed the game and resigned and because I had a reduced rating the person got no rating points...that was my revenge...
Really seems crazy now...
During a game I made an obvious mouseslip but my opponent refused to takeback.
So what I did was, disconnect which adjourned the game, I then proceeded to lose games on purpose eventually bringing my rating to around 1300, I then resumed the game and resigned and because I had a reduced rating the person got no rating points...that was my revenge...
Really seems crazy now...
All titled people are masters at acquiring rating.
me personally tho I don't care too much about it either
I can't imagine farming some person for 1+ 1+ 1+ to get some rating to then block someone who wins me because he took my rating back down (this happens here)
me personally tho I don't care too much about it either
I can't imagine farming some person for 1+ 1+ 1+ to get some rating to then block someone who wins me because he took my rating back down (this happens here)
I used to care a bunch about rating. Now I don’t. I used to get tilted and raged and even emotional about rating. Now I realise it’s ridiculous. It’s just a number.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.