| From | Message |
|---|
|
 'Highest rating won against' |
kingdawar
29-Jun-10, 13:28
|
Every win's a win
|
baronderkilt
29-Jun-10, 15:30
|
I agree with Heinzkat (HuH !? :) well anyway . . .
But that's not what you asked. So I'd say, "I don't know". You know you could write GK to ask & see if they would. [Once upon a time, long ago, they adjusted for one very high ranked player who T/O soooo many games; apparently of good cause. Yet I have doubts they would want to do this for a single change ... might not want it posted if they did !?] Wonder how the info is stored; if its on the URL, or in the cookie-jar ... well, that might be anti-site-rules tho.
* * *
However, it will be partially self-correcting as time goes by & it moves from 90-days to 1-Year to Ever.
* * *
Really, I think the Best for you is to go ahead & defeat a Higher-Rated opponent than he/she was. It seems the most certain & aesthetically pleasing as well.
* * *
}8-D
|
|
Me too, sort of.
baronderkilt - Here is another one to ponder. I actually have won against a higher rated player than my "highest ever won against". But it did not count because I did not have 20 finished games yet. (Or maybe my oppenent did not?) That still bugs me. I don't see why that should matter. Plus, like myrydin, I consider the win against my (listed) "highest ever won against" as a tainted win as well. But I don't think it would be proper to discuss it in a public forum.
myrydin - Sorry, but I don't have any better insight on the matter for you than heinzkat and baronderkilt have offered. But I usually go with whatever the KAT says.
|
black_cat_hamlet
30-Jun-10, 00:19
|
Well, the best thing you can do is to comment on your profile and say that your highest rated win wasn't won on skill... and add the second highest win too, if you remember who that was...
Still, rating points are rating points!
|
|
I think of it this way....
.....EVERYONE blunders (recall Kramniks howler?) The fact that a much higher rated player than myself blundered against me restored some of my faith in humanity. And fwiw, *I* am the highest rated player won against for a lot of players. I have been on both extremes. And guess what? - my average rating is almost the exact median of the two. I'm reminded of that quote about "all of the blunders are out there, just waiting to be made". Imagine baseball without errors, the NFL without penalty flags, or poker without "bad beats". Blunders are a part of the game, and WE ALL MAKE THEM.
Two Spoons
ps - The biggest blunder I have made on GameKnot was becoming the captain of Southern Chess about five years ago. What a bunch of lunatics.....and that reminds me => To any/all players who have had interactions with graderguy: His tests came back negative, so you can stop the treatments. Your doctors fees will be refunded.
|
easy19
30-Jun-10, 10:40
|
hmmm
Why not ask GK to make it a top 3 or 5 list of the higest rating won against in your profile.
you get somethign like this..
Average chess rating: 1668
Highest chess rating: 1877
Lowest chess rating: 1367
Average opponent rating: 1634
top 3 Highest rating won against: 2034 (moonandantartica) 1812 (baronderkilt) 1792 ( Mr X )
top 3 Lowest rating lost against: 722 (Ultrabeginner) 1200 (mkizildag) 1288 (heinzkat
Average moves per game: 35
|
tugger
30-Jun-10, 11:59
|
I was playing someone who left GK, his rating was over 2000. I was a pawn down in the middlegame and up against the ropes, before he disappeared. I took a week's vacation, let the time go down to an hour, then resigned. Sure, every win's a win, and I'd normally take a timeout even when losing, but I didn't want a hollow victory obsuring my genuine best win on my profile. I'm glad I resigned the game, the points I'd have gained would be irrelevant now, I would have gained fewer points in my following wins and lost more for losing thanks to my higher rating. It balances out in the end.
Annoyingly, my "lowest rating lost against" stat is against my brother, at 1200. Of course, it was when he joined, and his true rating would be around the 1500-1600 range if he stuck around, so it's not a true reflection of my worst perferomance, though I guess this isn't a bad thing haha! But it's annoying to be constantly reminded of a game of chess I lost to Chris.
|
|
Thanks for the replies. After further thought I've dismissed my own idea due to the potential for using the option for not so good reasons. For example, as Tag pointed at, some people might not consider a win against a blundering master to be a 'real' win, but I certainly would!
|
maca
03-Jul-10, 03:17
|
I don't think it would go so far to solve the overall problem, either. If you could eliminate your highest-rated victory, then what about the second-highest-rated one? That might be another hollow victory as well. Someone who has been around for a long time, and has played a lot of games might have multiple victories like that against high-rated players.
Regards,
MaCa.
|
tactical_abyss
03-Jul-10, 06:30
|
myrydin,
How about a game against a senior master(unrated game),where I sac either 2 pawns or 1 major piece(my choice)and I try my best for the win and so do you.Would you consider that a "real"win if you beat me and my handle name is listed on your profile?In a way,it would make the playing field much more fair to you with rating differences of approx.600 points.I wouldn't mind losing if it is unrated and it might be a good challenge to you when I throw everything but the kitchen sink at your pieces.Since it is unrated,I do not see a rule problem here,right?
Let me know!
TA
|
|
TA
Well it's not every day that you get the opportunity to play a senior master, so that would be great, thanks.
|
tactical_abyss
03-Jul-10, 08:12
|
myrydin,
I sent you an unrated challenge.If you don't want to accept now,we can delay for another time.Sac on my part or straight up,its your decision!
|
|
hey t_a
Check out my team page and hit the thread link - once you get through all of the nonsense (which Southern Chess thrives on), you will find EXACTLY the competition you speak of. We split into two "factions" and have been challenging each other to unrated games with handicaps (ie pawn and draw odds, knight and draw odds, etc...). It is a good (and fun) way for the weaker players to have a chance against the much stronger players. Throw in a "mafia" theme fueled by self medicating lunatics and you get a insanely funny experience. The only real thing to negotiate is a set opening sequence that must be played by both sides where one side intentionally gives up material. These handicap matches are good for the stronger player also, as they must play catch up as if they had blundered in a "real" game.
tag1153
ps - feel free to copy/paste any opening sequences that you need - they are all listed
|
tactical_abyss
03-Jul-10, 10:13
|
Perhaps one day tag(i'll take a raincheck),but if I plan to sac a Bishop for example,I must have a precise way of handling that game tactically from move #1 onwards.In other words,no set opening sequence set up ahead of time for me,no theme's,no anything.I have a plan in all sac games that involves positional play with a few tricks up my sleeve...the same way I handle many of my blitz sacs.No,they don't always work,and with any sac,even with an 1800 player,that player will have great winning chances against me,but I won't make it easy!One micro slip on my opponents part...and down the bottomless abyss they go!
Best,
TA
|
easy19
03-Jul-10, 14:01
|
o yes
I want such a chance also against tactical.
|
tactical_abyss
03-Jul-10, 15:59
|
No,your way TOO good freddy for me to sac a couple of pawns or a Knight,in the opening against you.Maybe in 3 minute blitz,but not in corresp!Otherwise i'd have to jump off my own cliff....and its a long,LONG way down!
|
grege79
04-Jul-10, 02:06
|
Sorry, but I just wanted to ask what the definition of "sac" is in relation to chess. Does it mean sacrifice?
|
tugger
04-Jul-10, 03:34
|
No, the sac is the bag where you keep your chess pieces. So if you "sac a pawn" you take it, and put it in the bag.
I'm lying. Sac means sacrifice.
|
maca
04-Jul-10, 10:06
|
Lol tugger...
But that definition would also work!
Regards,
MaCa.
|
grege79
04-Jul-10, 21:18
|
Hehe
That gave me a laugh!
|
