The US Chess weekly rerate run is to fix events submitted out of sequence or with wrong IDs or with wrong results. It still rates the games but the change in player or sequence makes it more exact. Figure about 25 rated games after an anomalous tournament you usually end up where you should.
OTB Ratings -- Where to go from here
Sort:
The op mentioned being in the under 1400 section at the u.s. open. I thought it was only one section at that tournament. That must be new.
DreamscapeHorizons wrote:
The op mentioned being in the under 1400 section at the u.s. open. I thought it was only one section at that tournament. That must be new.
He said it was in July in Philly with 1000+ other players. That makes it the World Open (Americans like to upgrade competition names - hence the World Series in American baseball).
The US Open remains a single section event in August (it might start as early as late July but it would not finish in July).
Interesting topic, I played in my first tournaments back in the 70’s, I would play a few, leave chess for 5-6 years, then come back.
My otb has ALWAYS stayed between 1600 and 1700.
I m certain my actual playing strength is much higher now. I had little access back then to tactical puzzles and no way to play chess with anyone outside of the rare 3-4 tournaments every 5-6 years.
Average playing strength I think is just much much better now. Everytime I come back I have to struggle harder to keep my same rating.
My otb has ALWAYS stayed between 1600 and 1700.
I m certain my actual playing strength is much higher now. I had little access back then to tactical puzzles and no way to play chess with anyone outside of the rare 3-4 tournaments every 5-6 years.
Average playing strength I think is just much much better now. Everytime I come back I have to struggle harder to keep my same rating.
Oct 1, 2021
0
#26
Ubik42 wrote:
Interesting topic, I played in my first tournaments back in the 70’s, I would play a few, leave chess for 5-6 years, then come back.
My otb has ALWAYS stayed between 1600 and 1700.
I m certain my actual playing strength is much higher now. I had little access back then to tactical puzzles and no way to play chess with anyone outside of the rare 3-4 tournaments every 5-6 years.
Average playing strength I think is just much much better now. Everytime I come back I have to struggle harder to keep my same rating.
My otb has ALWAYS stayed between 1600 and 1700.
I m certain my actual playing strength is much higher now. I had little access back then to tactical puzzles and no way to play chess with anyone outside of the rare 3-4 tournaments every 5-6 years.
Average playing strength I think is just much much better now. Everytime I come back I have to struggle harder to keep my same rating.
I can relate to the "average playing strength I think is just much much better now" sentiment. Based on the 20 OTB games I have played since the year started, over half of my opponents who were fairly young and rated somewhere in-between 1700 and 2100 USCF played at a level roughly 200-300 points higher than their actual ratings (at least when I played them) and I generally played around my rating or somewhat higher against them. This surge in underrated young players since the COVID-19 quarantine has, for the most part, ended and my results against them has caused my OTB rating to drop a bit since the beginning of this year.
Yeah, I am not at all familiar with the effect of COVID since I have not been back since then. I was speaking more of the long time frame of the last 40 years or so. Computer and internet availability I think has increased the actual playing strength at any given rating level.
Wow if Covid has also had a big effect, I can really expect to get hammered when I return to otb. I am doing more prep than I ever did before, so hopefully I’ll be ready!
Oct 1, 2021
0
#29
@Ubik42 -- I agree on both accounts. That is to say:
1. Players are definitely stronger today. I played OTB 45 years ago, and I know so so much more about chess now than I did then, but my rating is 300 points lower than 45 years ago. And, I did get hammered my first tourney back!
2. Kids in particular who were going to improve anyway have spent 1-1/2 years playing chess on-line and learning so much, so when they return to tourney play, they will be so much stronger, and it will take a while for their ratings to catch up.
Hey @Sholom90 sounds like we have similar experiences maybe we should write a book lol.
I don’t even know how I trained back then, I had a couple of books, went over a few games, then showed up for a tournament.
Now same rating but I spend hours on tactics, endgames, etc.
I don’t even know how I trained back then, I had a couple of books, went over a few games, then showed up for a tournament.
Now same rating but I spend hours on tactics, endgames, etc.
Jan 17, 2022
0
#31
sholom90 wrote:
Here's another great example. I played in the Atlantic Open last weekend. On the board next me, the following position arose -- black to play:
White was a 10 year old, rated around 700. Black was a 21 year old, rated around 1100.
Black made the wrong move here, followed by the right move for white, and white won.
After the game, the 10 year old explained to the 21 year old why his move was wrong and what he should have played.
Bottom line: there's no way this 10 year old is playing anywhere near a 700 level -- she's clearly much stronger than that. But in the books, this 1100 rated player lost to a 700 player.
==========
PS: OK, obviously, black takes a pawn. But which one maintains the draw, and which one loses? Just as important: after black takes the wrong pawn, what is white's correct response?
(Wasn't there a show called something like "Are you as smart as a 5th grader"?)
You just never know, younger players tend to be quite good tactically. It's possible her rating is kept low due to starting attacks irrationally that don't end well for her. There are lots of factors in chess.
So, then, next question: (@llama47, I'm looking at you!)
In my OP, I noted that I played a couple of youngsters who were clearly way better than their ratings.
I was poking around, and a number of them are already 100-150 points higher than they were when I played them (which was in the beginning of July).
So, here's my question. Suppose I lose to two players who are rated x when I played them, and then three months later, both of those players are x+150. Does that, or will that, change my rating at all? (In other words, is there a re-rating of sorts ever done based on the changing strength of past opponents?)
The way it works is you're "unfairly" low rated after losing right?
But that means in the future you'll win more than the rating system "expects" which results in more rating gain.
For example let's say you play two tournaments, A, and B
In tournament A you get beat by underrated kids and your rating drops.
In tournament B you score some wins and losses, just a normal tournament.
If you had never played tournament A, you might have won 20 points in tournament B
But after tournament A, your rating is lower, so maybe you gain 35 points instead.
Or let's say tournament B is tough, and you would normally have lost 20 points.
After tournament A, with your lower rating, maybe you only lose 10 points.
In other words the rating loss is temporary, and the loss is evenly distributed among all players (at least it is eventually in an ideal system).
----
In cases of fraud ratings have been recalculated, but that's the only time I've heard of it.
For example people who are rated 2190 might want 10 points to be a master. So they fake a tournament or match. They can submit game results that never happened using real player's names... people have done this, and gotten caught.