There aren't full stats for King of the Hill but in normal blitz there are 100 rated players so it stands to reason that there will be in the variant formats as well. But apparently you didn't play the game since I don't see it in your archive.
100 Elo points (literally)
Sort:
Aug 17, 2017
0
#3
Martin_Stahl wrote:
There aren't full stats for King of the Hill but in normal blitz there are 100 rated players so it stands to reason that there will be in the variant formats as well. But apparently you didn't play the game since I don't see it in your archive.
This level is extrapolated to most of his played variants, including blitz and bullet. I find it very difficult to believe that a player, even initiated, has this level.
Aug 17, 2017
0
#4
If a player is 100 rated or close to it in standard, and they are truly playing (not just goofing off), then it stands to reason that most of their time controls will be low. They may know how the pieces move and most of the rules but that is just about it.
There are players like that OTB. They don't see simple captures or threats, will leave pieces en prise or move them where they can immediately be taken. Normally, these are beginner players that haven't done any study or played with someone strong enough to give them pointers. I see that level of play with kids a lot.
Most of the time 100 rated players are sandbagging. It's almost impossible to be that bad. I was absolutely awful at chess when I started and the lowest I got was 800.
Aug 17, 2017
0
#6
Seems logic, although a little strange. At some point must be the level at which all initiates meet. And it seems to me that the percentile for 100 points is basically insignificant and incongruous with a serious and determined game.
As a chess coach, many of my students have played online, and I take some of their games to evaluate their progress along time; even for a beginner of 70 years old, it is difficult to have that rate.
Call me naive, but it is odd!
Wayne-Kenoff wrote:
Most of the time 100 rated players are sandbagging. It's almost impossible to be that bad. I was absolutely awful at chess when I started and the lowest I got was 800.
Yes, it does not look usual.
Aug 17, 2017
0
#7
I volunteer at a club that meets at a library and many if the kids that have been there would likely be 100 here if they played. It's not a learning club but I will give pointers on occassion. They mostly just like to play.
Aug 17, 2017
0
#8
Martin_Stahl wrote:
I volunteer at a club that meets at a library and many if the kids that have been there would likely be 100 here if they played.
You should do an experiment and publish the results. Chess.com's team of amateur scientists would be eternally grateful to you. 
When I first started playing this game, I landed at 500 elo.
So I can imagine it being POSSIBLE. Especially in speed chess. But most likely it was just a sandbag case.
Aug 17, 2017
0
#11
There's somebody who is generally rated 100-150 in bullet (he's up to almost 200 right now). He's played thousands of 1|0 games, spending about 5 seconds on every move. He gets flagged after 10-15 moves in almost all his games.
But he has a win over GM Eric Hansen: https://www.chess.com/live/game/2088187735
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGhxTX9wzQI (skip to 0:50)
I think it is possible to get 99 or less rating points.
Wayne-Kenoff wrote:
Most of the time 100 rated players are sandbagging. It's almost impossible to be that bad. I was absolutely awful at chess when I started and the lowest I got was 800.
Lowest I ever got was 230 something... :/
Jul 21, 2020
0
#15
jeanfan wrote:
I think it is possible to get 99 or less rating points.
Mathematically, yes, that would be possible. There's no mathematical reason the Glicko rating system couldn't go negative.
But chess.com has a rating floor of 100.
Jul 21, 2020
0
#16
Pff, 100 is hardly an accomplishment. Look at the daily ratings of these world champions:
https://www.chess.com/stats/daily/chess/timmaylivinalie
https://www.chess.com/stats/daily/chess/youwon1
MGleason wrote:
jeanfan wrote:
I think it is possible to get 99 or less rating points.
Mathematically, yes, that would be possible. There's no mathematical reason the Glicko rating system couldn't go negative.
But chess.com has a rating floor of 100.
Explain:
What's up, homies?
A few hours ago, I decided to play some King of the Hill, just to not fall into the routine and refresh the calculation skills. Suddenly, after half a minute of waiting I was paired with a player with no more than 100 Elo points. What is this and is it possible to be that bad at chess or is it an artificial rating?
Thanks in advance, guys.