| From | Message |
|---|
rastek
04-Apr-13, 07:35
|
 suspicion
regards
|
mrmarmalade
04-Apr-13, 08:33
|
|
|
I know of a couple of players who suddenly ( and inexplicably ) play a couple of hundred points above their established skill level against select opponents, then just as suddenly revert back to their established skill levels. That's the nature of some people here though it's not the norm (or excepted conduct) at GK.
|
|
I enjoy playing some tougher competition outside of team games and once in a while steal a win or a draw. Perhaps I spend a little more time before making a move in those games or my opponent plays down to my level but I don't feel guilty by getting a bone thrown my way once in a while. I would encourage everyone to try and improve their game by getting lessons from better players. Some like the challenge and don't care about their overall record. I guess it boils down to why one plays the game----don't hold that against those that have a little success occasionally---kudos to those that fall outside of the norm----
|
rastek
04-Apr-13, 22:13
|
thank you thumper and penn..
Interesting and true contributions, but these are NOT the problems here.. if you enjoy playing Spasskij, why not.. but if he comes along saying, his name is Peter Miller and it's the 5th game of his life, and after 20 moves you are left with just 2 pawns, then you will develop some doubts, won't you?
I speak about a gamer that obviously keeps his rating LOW by giving away matches without need.. and that's not ok.
|
|
You are right but I would jump at the chance of playing Spasskij or Peter Miller for that matter---hell, I've lost so many games, a couple of more wouldn't matter----lol
|
|
Rastek
I was alluding to people doing the opposite of what you're describing. Not someone who is actually far stronger that their rating shows and are artificially keeping their rating down for later tournament play advantage. I've heard that complaint a few times btw. I was actually alluding to people who use a chess program or help from a far superior player to 'suggest/generate' moves for them in order to beat a hated rival who is a much stronger player. They then play the rest of their games normally.
People who you can go back and study their past games and see a consistent lower level of play for a hundred games, who then suddenly jump a full skill class level higher for a single game against that hated rival, then drop back down to their natural level for another hundred games, then miraculously jump back up a full skill class level higher when playing that hated rival again.
|
rastek
05-Apr-13, 09:15
|
guys I understood your comments, thanks..
something different would interest me as well, how you feel it..
It seems I have a realistic rating of 1550 to 1600..
Players that are up to 50/100 under my rating I can normally beat in about 90 p.c. of games.
Players around my rating I really do have a chance of about 50 p.c. to win..
And players with more than 100 above my rating are very difficult for me..
Is that rating system really that meaningful for you as well..???
|
|
Normally yes. When I get 50 to 75 points above my average rating, I start losing more than I win. I'm like a Yo-yo----up and down, up and down. My rating only matters to me in team games because whether I win or lose affects others (my team).
|
