Why is everyone low rated so ridiculously good?
Sort:
I play a lot on the board and I just downloaded the app so
So basically the advice here is "you selected the second lowest skill level so tough luck, you'll get destroyed until your ranking fixes itself"? Man, that really doesn't sound like good planning. Either have everyone start out at the lowest ranking or have people do matches against the AI to test their skills...
Jan 25, 2021
0
#24
EverSnaxolotl wrote:
So basically the advice here is "you selected the second lowest skill level so tough luck, you'll get destroyed until your ranking fixes itself"? Man, that really doesn't sound like good planning. Either have everyone start out at the lowest ranking or have people do matches against the AI to test their skills...
Basically. However, when you lose or win your first game, you get like +-180 points, so it only takes half a dozen games or so to find your correct level
Again, you can select only matching people with 400 ranking below yourself for instance, click that option if you don't want to meet people at your current rank. Or yes get destroyed a couple of times and the system will sort you out to where you need to be.
EverSnaxolotl wrote:
So basically the advice here is "you selected the second lowest skill level so tough luck, you'll get destroyed until your ranking fixes itself"? Man, that really doesn't sound like good planning. Either have everyone start out at the lowest ranking or have people do matches against the AI to test their skills...
You started at 800 and now are 1007. You are getting destroyed so badly that you've gained 207 points. So what are you whining about?
is he a troll ?
EverSnaxolotl wrote:
I've only played like 6 games and I'm already very clearly seeing this - despite being completely new and at the default 1000 rating, the people I play against are just so much better. What's the reason for this? Are people intentionally keeping their rating down so they can smack Newbies around? It's really frustrating to just start out and already get beaten easily by almost everyone.
Take it easy, they all looking forward anti-cheating action... 
Jan 25, 2021
0
#29
llama47 wrote:
The main thing is that 1000 is not a beginner rating.
If someone learned chess for the first time, meaning, if someone didn't know how the pieces moved yesterday, then their rating would probably be below zero if we're being honest... but of course it will quickly go up.
With no other instruction, and a few months of casual playing (maybe 100 games total) they'd probably be doing quite well to be rated around 500... at least if they knew the values of the pieces (queen, rook, bishop, knight, pawn = 9, 5, 3, 3, 1) and maybe a basic checkmate (like two rooks vs king).
1000 is low, sure, but at the same time it combines some experience and some knowledge. For example the opening principles and basic tactical patterns (forks, pins, discoveries, and removing the defender). Many people also casually watch youtube videos by masters, which isn't very instructional, but it's better than nothing.
---
So for example in your most recent game against @eversnaxolotl you play 3...f6 to support the pawn push e5, but moving the f pawn in the opening is something all beginners are told not to do. Mostly because it weakens the king's position, but also because it makes it harder to develop the kingside knight.
On move 12, your opponent played 12.Nxf6 which was a check and a "discovered" attack on your bishop (moving the knight uncovered the queen's attack). If I were new I'd certainly be amazed by white's idea, but in truth this is a common and basic tactical motif.
Some good feedback here.
I agree. I also think beginners especially don't really understand ratings. It doesnt help that most people class those even under 1200/1400 as "beginners", where-as those 1200 "beginners" would be virtually unbeatable to actual beginners who start out around 300-500.
I've ran many offline chess tournaments in my office, where I ask people upon registering to loosely define their skill level as beginner, intermediate, advanced, etc for the purposes of fair pairings (as almost everyone is unrated/doesnt play OTB) - there are many people who class themselves as intermediates but when they send me their chess.com username - they're very much in the 'beginner' rating range.
Jan 25, 2021
0
#30
Haha, yeah, if a random person says "I'm pretty good at chess" then they're probably a beginner 
If someone is "pretty good" they're more likely to say "my rating is ____" or give some other indication of their actual level like "I play at the local club, you should visit us sometime"
llama47 wrote:
When I made my account on a PC there were 5 options like "new, beginner, intermediate, etc"
It doesn't tell you, but that will set your initial rating. I think the lowest starts you at 600 but I'm not sure.
I didn't consider how people leaving the game would unfairly pump up your rating. Yeah, that would be frustrating.
When I started my account I was not a professional player or even a master/expert (19xx USChess so FIDE would be similar if I ever bothered to play FIDE games is instead of being an arbiter for them), so I chose the middle option not realizing just how low it would start me. Others may do the same but they will generally increase to their correct level in a relatively small number of games (high k-factor for few games) with the hope that their opponents have a lower k-factor and thus don't lose as many points as the unintentionally underrated players are gaining.
I just went and analyzed your losses. your rating isn't 1000, at least i'm pretty sure it isn't. an example is from your game with CrossBerry. you either
1. got overconfident and ignored threats.
2.didn't see the threat .
or 3. you saw the threat but ignored it.
if it's 1. that's natural and your rating is below 800 rating.
2. = some where simple threats so probably lower than 700 rating.
3 = no offense but this is a obvious threat and below 600 rating.
llama47 wrote:
Haha, yeah, if a random person says "I'm pretty good at chess" then they're probably a beginner
If someone is "pretty good" they're more likely to say "my rating is ____" or give some other indication of their actual level like "I play at the local club, you should visit us sometime"
I am reminded of high school coaches that regularly get e-mails from proud parents of incoming freshman. The generally say "My kid is a great player. He beats everybody in the family and in the neighborhood. He'll be your new first board." The coaches then check and cannot find any rating so they have the kid play some of the weaker players of the club to get an idea of their strength - occasionally some of those "new first board" players might even make the weaker boards on the eight-player team lineups. That said, high school is four years and a lot of those "new first board" players end up learning a lot while going to the school's club - sometimes even reaching one of the stronger boards before graduating.
Jan 25, 2021
0
#34
As others have mentioned already a 1000 rated player is not really a beginner any more. Keep in mind that the lowest rating you can achieve at chess.com ist 100 (=total beginner) which means that a player with a rating of 1000 is 900 points better!
In my opinion 1000 rated players do not make horrible blunders any more (like dropping pieces on every second move) and have basic knowledge about opening principles and do play quite solid openings (eg not weird opening moves any more like 500 rated players). They start well in the opening but in the middle game they will make some big mistake (for example a bad positional move) which higher rated players will immediately exploit to their advance. As example I would like to show one of my recent games against a 1000 rated player. He played well the first twelve moves, but made a miscalculation on move 13 which lead at once to a big advantage for me.
FearlessPuffin wrote:
I just went and analyzed your losses. your rating isn't 1000, at least i'm pretty sure it isn't. an example is from your game with CrossBerry. you either
1. got overconfident and ignored threats.
2.didn't see the threat .
or 3. you saw the threat but ignored it.
if it's 1. that's natural and your rating is below 800 rating.
2. = some where simple threats so probably lower than 700 rating.
3 = no offense but this is a obvious threat and below 600 rating.
If he's playing 10/0 his play looks about right for a 1000ish player. Being the default that pool is a bit softer. I mean, he missed an obvious mate in one, which also means his opponent blundered an obvious mate in one so it wasn't exactly wizardry on either side.
FearlessPuffin wrote:
I just went and analyzed your losses. your rating isn't 1000, at least i'm pretty sure it isn't. an example is from your game with CrossBerry. you either
1. got overconfident and ignored threats.
2.didn't see the threat .
or 3. you saw the threat but ignored it.
if it's 1. that's natural and your rating is below 800 rating.
2. = some where simple threats so probably lower than 700 rating.
3 = no offense but this is a obvious threat and below 600 rating.
But that's precisely my point, I just started out and am being matched against people who are clearly better than me. I didn't decide "hey, I want to be at 1000 rating because I'm so good". I wish I were ranked fairly instead.
And I can't get to a fair rank because every other game my opponent disconnects.
Jan 25, 2021
0
#37
Back 30 years ago I played tournaments and was 2100+. Then quit and didn't play AT ALL for 25 years. Started playing again 2 months ago (hehe, Queen's Gambit - coincidence haha), didn't know what to tell chess.com, so I said "intermediate". It put me at 1200. I'm now up to 1800 (still really rusty), but I have to say some of those early games against people ~1100 were tougher than I was expecting. I even lost a few. 1000 is definitely not beginner.
My wife is more of what I'd call a "beginner", but she's played hundreds of games and gone through "Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess". Even after all of that her chess.com rating is like 600.
Jan 25, 2021
0
#38
Penguin wrote:
llama47 wrote:
*snip*
---
So for example in your most recent game against @eversnaxolotl you play 3...f6 to support the pawn push e5, but moving the f pawn in the opening is something all beginners are told not to do**.
*snip*
**All beginners who watch Ben Finegold👌😁
*** Technically it was Mike Kummer who created the never play f6 rule, Ben just borrowed it from him
Jan 25, 2021
0
#39
I started on here with a few years casual experience. I thought I was a good player but my rating was only 1300. I had a lot to learn!
10 years and 1000s of games later and I am still only at around 1700-1750, and less on Blitz and Bullet. It isn't an easy game.
Those people who come on here and say they want to get to 2000 are kidding themselves (unless they have a really logical mind and natural gift for the game). As for becoming a grandmaster, you have about the same chance of becoming a tennis champion or pop star.
My advice, keep at it and do lessons. Study tactics and openings and gradually you will rise up to 1200, 1300, 1400.
They aren't "ridiculously good" - for example in your latest game:
https://www.chess.com/live/game/6343015091
Your opponent got way too greedy and allowed you a mate in one (17...Qd2). I don't point that out to be critical of you, just to help dispel any notion that players may be "keeping their rating down so they can smack Newbies around". Best to just lose those psychological burdens ASAP and own the losses for what they are.
The good news is your rating will still be extremely volatile due to you not having played many games yet, so you'll soon find your level and can then start working your way up (assuming you try to improve of course).
It's extremely common advice, Ben didn't come up with it, but he is funny and instructive that's true