|
|
|
Topic: The Great Rating Bubble of 2005-2006!
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
I have to disagree with you here. That will make it harder for new players to get an established rating. They'll only be able to play fellow newcomers to the site, which I feel would make QA a less friendly place.
| Perhaps we should introduce some deflation here by removing the protection established players have when playing unrated or provisionally-rated players |
|
|
|
Viceroy, I understand your position but that is the single largest inflationary factor, I believe. However, the CFC and USCF have a number of provisions in their rating systems that might help to keep inflation under control, such as halving rating gains for players over 2200 and different formulas for calculating provisional ratings and established ratings. Maybe we should establish a committee to look into some other possibilities.
|
|
|
If a 2000 rated player loses to a 1400 rated player, he should lose a bunch of points. Any 2000 rated player that wants protection from a 1400 rated player does not deserve the rating he has because he is a coward.
|
|
|
| If a 2000 rated player loses to a 1400 rated player, he should lose a bunch of points |
Well, he/she will then just refuse to play lower rated players, especially if they are provisionally rated; the newer player might be using a chess engine after all! On other sites people have to be very picky about who they play; QA is not like that and I hope it remains that way.
| halving rating gains for players over 2200 and different formulas for calculating provisional ratings and established ratings |
Popcorn, I think that might be something worth looking into. At the end of the day though, 99% of chessplayers feel the chess rating system does not reflect their real knowledge/ability in chess 
Winnawer, I must defend the French defence! A wonderful opening; the Nimzowitsch variation has lots of opportunities for sharp tactics  At the very least you might want to change your username ... I was going to challenge you thinking you were another Frenchie 
|
|
|
Viceroy, I play e5 against e4. I despise when people play 1 ... e6 to my 1. e4. Maybe I should look into the French as black because it is very annoying as white. I play e4 looking for e5 to start the king's gambit. It is good practice here, but let me tell you, at OTB tournaments the King's Gambit scores heavily. I love the look on my opponent's face when I play 2. f4. It seems very few people actually study it as black. I would say that 95% of the response to 1 e4 is either 1 ... e5 or 1 ... c5, very few French defenses.
I think there are enough 2000+ rated players willing to play anybody regardless of rating or provisional status. I am playing in quite a few open tourneys here (and not doing terribly well I might add) with people like claumann in the 2400's (kicked my butt) to others in the 1400 range (did not kick my butt)
Another thing, you should play people better than you, but not by more that 200 points or so. Much more of a point spread and the lower player is unlikely to even understand what happened. I can say this from experience. At the Atlanta Chess Center a few years back I played a G45 open tourney and the 1st round I played IM Ron Burnett.(2450 at the time) Needless to say he smoked me, and after analysing the game with Fritz 8 later, I still was not 100% sure of what the heck happened. He got an easy point (won the tourney as well) and I got a confused look on my face.
Lower rated players should ease up the ladder slowly, losing game after game to someone 500 points above you can be very discouraging.
Just my opinion.
I will challenge you to a set of 2 games viceroy, and we can discuss the moves while we play, maybe I can shed a little light on things for you.
|
| Previous 1 2 3 Next |
|
|
|
