You should not be so quick to pat yourself on the back.
If you look, his average opponent rating is about 300 points less than his own. Yours is about 50. So, basically, he is used to playing people weaker than yourself.
This type of player is what I call The Stalker. They set their desired opponents ratings from -300 to +5 or something so they get lower rated players. This guy, for example, has played 6,000+ games and is still stuck at 1600.
When determining the real strength of your opponent, look at these numbers too. If your opponent's avg. opponent rating is within 100 points or so of their own, then you can be sure there is a good chance their rating is solid.
Personally I set my range from -50 to +500. I get lots of these guys. I played one the other day who had a 1900+ rating and his avg. opponent was less than 1400.
It doesn't matter. He still got to nearly 1700... and you have to beat a lot of good players at some point to get to that rating.
It's funny how you're trying so hard to take discredit my victory
That's not true. If you play 100 opponents with ratings 300 points less than yours, and you get 2 points for each game, you get 200 points. If you play 50 opponents 150 ponts less than yours, and you get 4 points for each game, you get 200 points.
This is the theory behind their approach. They play weaker players so they win more games, thereby, boosting their ratings.
If I played against opponents 300 points below my rating, I would eventually get to 1700. It would take a while, but I would get there and, probably, beyond.
But, and I'm sure most can agree, it is a weakass way of playing chess and, of course, does nothing to really improve your chess skills.
From the game you gave, and the numbers I mentioned, you are obviously the better player. Your rating is not higher probably because you choose to to play stronger players regularly. ANd this is truly what makes someone a star chess player.
And, again, I aplogize. I was not trying to discredit your victory. No matter the strength of your opponent, you deserve fair credit for winning. I was just taking issue with bragging so much about beating someone who is obviously equal to or weaker than yourself.
Ok I understand and apology accepted but for those of u who dont know... and my fans know.... I have beaten quite a few (5+) 1700 ranked players who avg opp is 1500-1600
This isn't the first 1600-1700 ranked player i've beaten
You should not be so quick to pat yourself on the back.
If you look, his average opponent rating is about 300 points less than his own. Yours is about 50. So, basically, he is used to playing people weaker than yourself.
This type of player is what I call The Stalker. They set their desired opponents ratings from -300 to +5 or something so they get lower rated players. This guy, for example, has played 6,000+ games and is still stuck at 1600.
When determining the real strength of your opponent, look at these numbers too. If your opponent's avg. opponent rating is within 100 points or so of their own, then you can be sure there is a good chance their rating is solid.
Personally I set my range from -50 to +500. I get lots of these guys. I played one the other day who had a 1900+ rating and his avg. opponent was less than 1400.
It doesn't matter. He still got to nearly 1700... and you have to beat a lot of good players at some point to get to that rating.
It's funny how you're trying so hard to take discredit my victory
That's not true. If you play 100 opponents with ratings 300 points less than yours, and you get 2 points for each game, you get 200 points. If you play 50 opponents 150 ponts less than yours, and you get 4 points for each game, you get 200 points.
This is the theory behind their approach. They play weaker players so they win more games, thereby, boosting their ratings.
If I played against opponents 300 points below my rating, I would eventually get to 1700. It would take a while, but I would get there and, probably, beyond.
But, and I'm sure most can agree, it is a weakass way of playing chess and, of course, does nothing to really improve your chess skills.
From the game you gave, and the numbers I mentioned, you are obviously the better player. Your rating is not higher probably because you choose to to play stronger players regularly. ANd this is truly what makes someone a star chess player.
And, again, I aplogize. I was not trying to discredit your victory. No matter the strength of your opponent, you deserve fair credit for winning. I was just taking issue with bragging so much about beating someone who is obviously equal to or weaker than yourself.