|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
GameKnot related: Gameknot Rating V. Real Life Rating
« Back to forum| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Gameknot Rating V. Real Life RatingI feel that my rating here, is a little, underated. Considering the draws that I had against Joann, how well I played against tombulous, two wins against Coach Stockel, and making things very difficult for Nathan A Resika on two occasions, I'd say that my real life rating is about 1400-1500. I know that people were giving me tips on how to improve as a chess player. And, I seem to remember one giving me tips on how to boost my GK rating. But, I've learned to ignore the Gameknot rating. One of the main reasons is because GM Susan Polgar said that rating is just a number. Knowing that helped me to stay true to myself. This time, it wasn't the negative experience that I had before. But, when I focused on just my GK rating which was, as far back as, 2 years ago, I was starting to feel that I just wasn't accomplishing what it took to be a great player. He meant well, but the master mater told me that making progress means improving my GK rating, in particular. That's not always the case. I learned to look at other things and factor things in. In fact, the reason that I don't see my GK rating changing much any time soon is the fact that I'm not available to play more then 2 games at one time. And, that's due to how many hours I work per week. I also looked at someonelse's rating here. It's only registered at 1200 because she only played one game here, but in reality, she's an IM. So, I learned not to just base things on GK rating, but to look at the entire picture, as a whole. In fact, knowing that the real rating might be very different from GK, and that one might be a lot better then the rating suggests, also helped me to realize my potential. |
||
|
hey ... some people have other 'real life' ratings, going as follows; a) avoid him/her at all costs ... to ... f) wicked cool fortnite player ... in school our real life ratings were assigned a letter grade, the closer to the front of the alphabet, the better, for precision those letters had a plus, neutral and minus rating; like in Gym class you can get a C+, in French a B- ... hope this helps. |
||
|
|
||
|
nice J |
||
|
clashofpawns 17-Oct-18, 13:32 |
GK's rating is extremely accurate. It is a rating that characterizes your strength in the pool of GK players. My GK rating is lower than my FIDE. So? It's two different pools. I'm also underrated on GK. |
||
|
Rating numbers. You also have to consider what makes them move - that is to say, how it measures 'strength'. In fact it measures no such thing. It measures results, and only the end result of the game - one, half or zero has any influence on your rating. It does not measure how well you played in losing to 2000+ Fred Nerg, or how 1400- Marsha Clunk turned a brilliant win into a humiliating loss by one single oversight. That is one of the reasons, Joe, that I suggest that you play a sizeable proportion of your games against players close to your own rating - within 50, or possibly 100 higher or lower. That way you do get to see whether you are making progress. I see progress in your ability by noticing far fewer short-ranged mistakes than used to appear in your games. Consistency is one of the hall-marks of strong players. In my view, you can not equate the rating numbers between disparate and separate environments. Even if the basis and systems are the same, because the numbers are relative, and they had different beginnings and histories, there is no real meaning to 'under-rated' or 'over-rated' in comparison with other ratings. The meanings of such expressions lie only within a given system - in our case, Gameknot. Even then, your rating is a true reflection of your real playing strength only insofar as your results are a 'true reflection ... etc'. |
||
|
That's a good thing because the master mater is easy19, who's on the Pacific Trail, is nice. But, he told me that I shouldn't post anything about chess until my ELO has improved to, at least, 1400. At first, it was, I believe 1310, and maybe, 1315. Then, he implied that I should hold off until pulling it up to 1400+. But, ace-of-aces was really good about it, and continued with, "I want to help you to raise your chess rating up to 2000. Do you own chessbase ? The new and latest edition chessbase 15 is out. I am thinking of buying it. It is a good investment. If you get it, I will show you how to improve your chess rating and play. Get also latest edition of chess programs, Fritz and Commodo." And, yes, progress is, exactly, what the GK rating boils down, and Fred (the master mater) was taking that and telling me that I wouldn't be taken seriously until I've improved which was the cornerstone to starting this thread. I'm not angry, as he wasn't saying it to be mean, but I know Fred very well with a series of training games. He's the only master that I not only disagree with but don't take seriously, at all. One reason being is that his teaching style does not blend in, at all, with my style of learning. In addition, I more then achieved my overall goal as I went from just coaching to helping not one, but two, children. And, my instincts are right here since I came, extremely, close to drawing against an even stronger player, Nathan whose Fide was, at one point, 2360. That's how I won the chess magazine, last Friday. In fact, I only made one mistake which was enough to lose. But, clashofpawns would think differently because his method is trying to get someone to memorize material instead of understanding it. That, alone, isn't enough of a reason, but it was really about informing me that I wouldn't be taken seriously. But, a stronger player, deeper-insight, who's a Fide IM implied the opposite. And, he didn't even tell me that my ELO is low. He said that, overtime, he's noticed progress. Plus, no matter how good you are, it'll take a really long time before you become significantly better. In fact, he said that based on what he saw when I started, this is where my rating should be, and that's I've made even more progress then he's seen with other players who started out like me. That's another reason for being a fan of TA. Joe also informed that he didn't completely agree with how the master mater did things, either. The point is that I don't need to be taken seriously to coach or mentor anyone. I've continued, which is also how I met Eric. Unrelated to that, it was after being cyberbullied which I won't get into, again. Plus, someone who's ELO Rating is close to 1800 (Grace) said that she really like my annotations and profile, implying that I should continue what I'm doing. As did a 1900+ ELO Rated Player, branewell. Given that Fred closed his account, for the time being, I would've just let it go since I've moved on from following his advice after other advice. But, I know that it's a question of not if but when Fred returns. It's a matter of time before it happens. I'm looking forward to easy19 returning. When that happens, if he tells me the same thing, that I shouldn't post things related to chess due to my ELO Rating, I will be ready, and certainly, will show him this thread. Hopefully, though, he's reading this thread in cyberspace and won't do it again. |
||
|
you needed 110 words to give me a answer. you only need one!!! The answer is ( Progress ) you use a hole loads of words to prove you are getting better and stronger in chess.( you are not) This combined with loads of examples of chess related names and things that are not adding any value to it.. A side effect of this all. You are annoying people with it, People who do not like to get all this verbal violence shoveled down there throats. So Joe learn this from me, do not use so many words and examples and start playing for real.. To say it short >> not words but deeds << To help you with this i have 1 task for you, do not say anything until you reach a rating of 1310 if you can do that we all will see your progress and like to talk about it. ( Key word > Focus )" |
||
|
if you look at your graph gameknot.com Then it tels you that you are now on the right track and making progress. Next goal 1400 and keep your feet firmly on the ground.." That was for a while, but things changed. A) that was before I started playing in an OTB tournament. B: it was before I wound up with significantly less time to play. So, when both happened, that's when I went to abandoning the 1400 ELO Rated Goal. I mean, I'd still like that, but it's not my main priority anymore, but I see where others feel that it should be. After starting to participants in OTB tournaments, my goal then became to win, at least, one OTB tournament. I didn't just win 1, but 2. That's progress, which doesn't even show on GK, until the games become an annotation, and that was, before annotating. Now, it's not even about winning but learning. However, the next goal is to win an OTB tournament, where I'd be able to annotate everything. This is new as I didn't start annotating any such tournament until the last one. What it's about is that I have more goals then just boosting about my ELO Ratings, and I'm more then happy, where I stand. I also know that going for too much can backfire as that's when I play too much at once and too fast. As that's why I took me such a long time to surpass beginning status online, let alone, where I am today. |
||
|
The relativity of the ELO system... |
||
|
Not how good I am , I can sometimes win againt a higher rated player and in the next game lose to a much lower rated player the only constant being my enjoyment I have broken into the top 125 @ chess tactics regularly on this site , that has helped I think but that rating bears no resemblance to my actual play ! And @jkarp - Joe if a coach tells you that your input into chess will not be taken seriously till your rating improves is wrong on so many levels , It is there coaching that is remis Your input has value Joe |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
I told him about what easy19 told me with that ELO rating, and he seemed horrified about this. In fact, what he said aligns with what Neil posted and what I originally thought. Nathan told me not to go by what the ELO Rating tells me. He said that, in general, the ELO ratings aren't always accurate. In other words, they're known to make mistakes. He wasn't specifically alluding to GK, either, but he said, in general. In particular, I think that, for the most part, they're fairly accurate on GK, in particular, as ION and Sasha posted. As per Nathan's advise, however, I still don't go by what they tell me. That's because Nathan's advise was to not go by the ELO rating. He said that you don't base your improvements on ELO formula. Instead, whether you have an assigned Fide rating or not, you base it on your OTB play. He said that based on how I've played, and what he's seen, I'm a very good player. I was very proud that Nathan told me this. I then smiled and thanked him for telling me this. I now have an even higher level of respect for Nathan. In addition to going out of his way, to 3 different school districts to teach children, he also allowed me to feel true to myself, which is something that cami3 mentioned in one of her blogs. So, if, in the future, when Fred comes back, if he tells me that I shouldn't, "say anything", with my online rating, I'll tell him what Nathan Resika told me on Friday. |
||
|
yon_cassius 13-Dec-18, 07:32 |
@ dannyl724 Unless a player wins a lot of their games in the opening, the database can at best help to avoid getting pounded early on... but when the database dries up, it's down (mainly) to tactics and endgames! |
||
|
I don't think I used it when I was a non paying member You Probably do for the personal database |
||
|
yon_cassius 13-Dec-18, 07:56 |
Of course... the DB can only go to 20 moves if there are games that have reached that position! And when it starts getting sparse... |
||
|
Honestly can't remember Nick , must be getting old 😉 |
||
|
yon_cassius 13-Dec-18, 08:04 |
<chuckle> |
