800 level
Sort:
I don't understand why I am 800 rank but keep getting smashed by other players and the analysis says they played a 1500 to 1600 level game. Do people cheat at this low rank? At one point I hit 1043 rating, but now I struggle to barely maintain 800. I have seen 95% accuracy games which seems suspect at this rank.
Yorkfire wrote:
I don't understand why I am 800 rank but keep getting smashed by other players and the analysis says they played a 1500 to 1600 level game. Do people cheat at this low rank? At one point I hit 1043 rating, but now I struggle to barely maintain 800. I have seen 95% accuracy games which seems suspect at this rank.
The post game estimated rating is not really a good description of rating level. It's an estimate and isn't really accurate.
The vast majority of members are playing fairly and at the lower levels that's especially true. However, if you truly believe another member is using disallowed resources you should report them.
https://support.chess.com/en/articles/8562517-how-do-i-report-someone
Martin_Stahl wrote:
Yorkfire wrote:
I don't understand why I am 800 rank but keep getting smashed by other players and the analysis says they played a 1500 to 1600 level game. Do people cheat at this low rank? At one point I hit 1043 rating, but now I struggle to barely maintain 800. I have seen 95% accuracy games which seems suspect at this rank.
The post game estimated rating is not really a good description of rating level. It's an estimate and isn't really accurate.
The vast majority of members are playing fairly and at the lower levels that's especially true. However, if you truly believe another member is using disallowed resources you should report them.
https://support.chess.com/en/articles/8562517-how-do-i-report-someone
Maybe you can answer this extremely easy question, Marty. (I doubt it, but hope springs eternal, right?) If, as you say, the post-game rating is not a good description of rating level and isn't really accurate, why do they include it? Data that is known to be inaccurate doesnt really help anyone...
My guess is staff think it's an interesting inclusion. I assume there are ongoing tweaks to the code to make it better but I'm not sure there is a good way to do what they're trying to do, at least more accurately.
Martin_Stahl wrote:
My guess is staff think it's an interesting inclusion. I assume there are ongoing tweaks to the code to make it better but I'm not sure there is a good way to do what they're trying to do, at least more accurately.
Ok, let me get this straight...you are GUESSING that chess.com's staff thinks that including data that YOU say "is known to be inaccurate" is an "interesting inclusion." Seriously? That is the best you can do?
I wasn't involved in the development or anything related to it. I just know from seeing the results that they're not accurate and should be taken with a grain of salt. The may be directionally accurate, so if you see a rating higher than your current rating you played better than what it would indicate, but it's certainly not as good as it shows a lot of the time.
So yeah, there's some speculation there. That's why I used the words I did 
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say it’s known to be inaccurate to be fair; from my own experience and seeing ratings it gives to my students that I know are completely unachievable.
As to why it’s included i would say it’s the way a lot of apps operate nowadays (eg Duolingo) with some kind of gamification slant to keep people interested (cynically you could also say hooked) and playing, and also staying premium members.
I think 800s can be pretty hard to beat when I get bad lag and lose form then tilt getting dragged back down into the bear pit it's a real struggle to get back up into the 1000s
Martin_Stahl wrote:
I wasn't involved in the development or anything related to it. I just know from seeing the results that they're not accurate and should be taken with a grain of salt. The may be directional accurate, so if you see a rating higher than your current rating you played better than what it would indicate, but it's certainly not as good as it shows a lot of the time.
So yeah, there's some speculation there. That's why I used the words I did
Ok, one last question...do you actually THINK before you post? Because you don't even seem to grasp how ignorant your posts are...
Martin_Stahl wrote:
I wasn't involved in the development or anything related to it. I just know from seeing the results that they're not accurate and should be taken with a grain of salt. The may be directional accurate, so if you see a rating higher than your current rating you played better than what it would indicate, but it's certainly not as good as it shows a lot of the time.
So yeah, there's some speculation there. That's why I used the words I did
Just to be clear, I dont really care what data chess.com provides post game. I rarely if ever actually play on this site and I certainly never play serious chess on this site due to its vast shortcomings. The only reason I am on this forum is because I find it fascinating that your posts are so utterly ignorant. Marty: It is an 'interesting inclusion' on the part of chess.com to provide data that is known to be inaccurate! You can;t make this up!!!! but seriously, thanks for the laugh.
JamesColeman wrote:
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say it’s known to be inaccurate to be fair; from my own experience and seeing ratings it gives to my students that I know are completely unachievable.
As to why it’s included i would say it’s the way a lot of apps operate nowadays (eg Duolingo) with some kind of gamification slant to keep people interested (cynically you could also say hooked) and playing, and also staying premium members.
so are you saying all instances of post game rating on chess.com are over stated as opposed to being a combination of both overstated and understated data points?
AZPawnstar wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote:
My guess is staff think it's an interesting inclusion. I assume there are ongoing tweaks to the code to make it better but I'm not sure there is a good way to do what they're trying to do, at least more accurately.
Ok, let me get this straight...you are GUESSING that chess.com's staff thinks that including data that YOU say "is known to be inaccurate" is an "interesting inclusion." Seriously? That is the best you can do?
Isn't it obvious? For the same reason the Duolingo owl tells you you are great. It's a gimmick, a gamification tool to keep users interested and/or make them feel better. The better question is: Why would anyone care about that number or the accuracy percentage, when there already is a rating that tells you exactly how good you are?