elo is completely broken and i dont think its fixable.
Sort:
I'm talking about the system, not my personal ELO by the way.
so only a couple days ago I was under 500 elo, about 490. I was always complaining about how I was better than this and I should be a higher level. After a long time I've hit 500 (and now 600) and I can confidently say it is WAY easier than 400, I haven't studied, yet I've gained 100 elo in a day doing the exact same things as I was. if you're under 500, you're not bad, for some reason the skill of other 400's is higher.
1 day ago
0
#2
no it’s not if you think it’s easier that means you are simply improving faster than you’re gaining elo & at some elo every 100 points will truly make a difference
Tiberius9868 wrote:
no it’s not if you think it’s easier that means you are simply improving faster than you’re gaining elo & at some elo every 100 points will truly make a difference
this cant be the case because there was simply no time for improvement within a day
13 hrs ago
0
#4
Complaining about elo gives you nothing. You are blundering pieces left and right. Try not to do it and your rating will increase enormously.
borovicka75 wrote:
Complaining about elo gives you nothing. You are blundering pieces left and right. Try not to do it and your rating will increase enormously.
did you read my post??? like actually read it??? I wasn't saying my elo was too low or the game was too hard, I was just saying that a 600 level was easier than 400.
12 hrs ago
0
#6
Aren't you drawing rather sweeping conclusions from a few games?
I drew against Tal (in a simul) back in 1988.
Would it have been correct for me to draw the conclusion that Elo was broken and that World Chess Champions and Super-GMs were vastly over-rated?
11 hrs ago
0
#7
CatLuvar wrote:
I'm talking about the system, not my personal ELO by the way. so only a couple days ago I was under 500 elo, about 490. I was always complaining about how I was better than this and I should be a higher level. After a long time I've hit 500 (and now 600) and I can confidently say it is WAY easier than 400, I haven't studied, yet I've gained 100 elo in a day doing the exact same things as I was. if you're under 500, you're not bad, for some reason the skill of other 400's is higher.
So, you rise up in rating and that is enough of a proof that system is broken? This is a harsh conclusion. You are drawing it too quickly.
First of all:
Against 400-500 rated people: 78 W - 58 L
Against 500-600 rated people: 23 W - 35 L
This means that higher rated people are stronger, as they should be. The rating is fine.
There are other explanations for what you've described.
1. The improvement isn't instantaneous
Imagine this. You do something to get better, and for the time being nothing happens, sometimes one can actually be a little bit worse rating wise. Then, somewhere down the road, something clicks and the rating catches up to where it should be.
You need to practice what you've learned and to implement it in a way that equals improvement. This doesn't happen right away, but after some time.
2. Rating variance is completely normal
Up and down 100 points and a bit more is nothing unusual. You win a few games and there is a streak of good results, and sometimes a streak of bad results will happen as well. Many people have their highest rating 100+ point higher than where they usually are.
This is especially the case when you play multiple games per day. Your rating can fluctuate a lot because of streaks - good and bad.
When you are playing badly, losing a few games, you tilt and lose even more. When you are playing well, sometimes you feel unbeatable, your confidence rises and you get better results than expected.
10 hrs ago
0
#8
Yes, i read your first post several times, but still does absolutely no sense to me. What i was trying to say is, if chess player wants to get better, he should concentrate on what is actually going on in his games and forgot about rating. But if you play chess for rating, it is of course your choice.
https://www.chess.com/variants/diamond-wall/game/74487124/
First, I don't care about my ELO (apart from getting into certain games with min ELO). But this is hard to understand: A 4P FFA where I am (1) lowest rated player and (2) I place second, I lose ELO? I've never seen this before. Seems totally incorrect.
7 hrs ago
0
#10
The system is designed for long-term accuracy, not short-term satisfaction.
There are many factors that affect your performance that you may not recognize while you're playing. Your level is not a static number like an elo, it's a range that is affected by external and internal variables. One example of an internal would be your level of concentration. It varies from session to session without you necessarily noticing and while you think your play is the same, actually you make less mistakes. No actual skill improvement or study needed, just a little more focus makes it alot easier to play.