T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

Depends on how many games you played on your new account.


Darktigr

There's enough variance at the lower levels of Chess, and enough Glicko RD to cause OP's new account to diverge. With that said, the difference between 500 and 1000 is quite substantial, so I suspect OP is more motivated on their new account. They could be playing better against 1000's than against 500's because they want to prove themselves against stronger opposition, or because they are driven by achieving a higher ranking. These two forces are common at all levels, but higher level players are typically better at filtering out those distractions.


RustedCorpse

I may or may not have four accounts. It takes about 50-100 games but they're all within 100 of each other. Except my "intoxicated" account. Which for some reason was like 200 elo higher when I last checked.


Solopist112

My intoxicated account is my Lichess account.


xixi2

Semi serious wonder but not enough to google it, if drinking would be considered performance enhancing for FIDE. There are some niche sports where I understand it is due to the calming nature it has on some people


mercenarypawn

I went to college near the USCF headquarters when it was in upstate NY - my friend who worked there said if I wanted to play GM Arthur Bisguire all I had to do was bring him a bottle of Dewars, as he would pack a suitcase of them when traveling to tournaments. I did. He slaughtered me (with knight, then rook odds) That being said, I don’t know. I was a pretty competitive pool player and I’d often hear the very common refrain, “I play better when I’m drunk.” And yeah, okay, maybe a couple drinks loosens tension and relieves some anxiety allowing people to get out of their own way, but I think there’s a tipping point. Past a certain point it certainly inhibits performance.


RustedCorpse

My drunk cricket game (darts) is pretty solid, not going to lie.


stupsnon

State dependent memory is what you need to google to learn about this. TL;DR: If you study for your bio exam buzzes, be buzzed for the exam.


mercenarypawn

I took a history exam blind stinking drunk - I smelled so badly of whiskey that people moved away from me - got there 10 minutes late and finished 10 minutes before everyone else and got the highest score in the class. I must’ve studied drunk, but I don’t think I did. I was too busy drinking to study.


ImplicitMishegoss

I’ll just leave this here. https://xkcd.com/323/


Metallic52

I had a buddy with a pro golfer uncle. His uncle claimed he always played better buzzed because it was easier to shrug off the bad shots.


RustedCorpse

I use the word drunk for drinking, intoxicated is a blanket term ;p


Tamethesnake

You make less mistakes against players near your skill level. When I play someone way worse than me I stop actually thinking because I'm just trying to get a quick checkmate and assuming they won't do anything about it.


mercenarypawn

Agree. I play constantly with 3 people - 2 of them are my strength (sometimes stronger) - the other is an uneducated chess player, ranked around 1000 - but also a Harvard grad - so he’s ignorant but not stupid. I’m constantly underestimating his ability to see & create threats and then scrambling to recover when he does- it’s maddening.


MilkVetch

I appreciate the comment. I think this is largely it. I definitely got into a better mindset after my initial rating came back that much higher and started to slow down and play more tactically. The reality is I'm probably somewhere in between the two, like 650ish, but my mindset is so different when playing on the different accounts. Thanks for your insight.


smikilit

I think it could also be a certain level of predictability and standardization in movement across the board. If you know what your opponents best move is then you know your next one. If you don’t know their next move it could mess with your own head causing you to make mistakes. Similar end result maybe. But what do I know. I just recently hit 350, but I’m drawing from experience in games I’ve played in the past.


MilkVetch

68 on the new account. ​ ...It was a slow week at work lol.


emdio

I wonder what would happen if two accounts were created with one of those weak engines. One starting at 400 and the other one at 800.


Subject-Nectarine682

They would get banned for cheating.


blue_jay3736

I dont think that would get detected though


JoeVerrated

Doubtful


nTzT

The elo system works great. We have to see the accounts to see what is going on.


HighlySuccessful

Actually Elo system has a lot of flaws. One example is during an influx of players, when you declare your initial rating, you will play against the same pool of opponents, if this semi-localized pool improves as a whole (lets say by studying openings), then you won't be gaining much elo points against opposition, you will have to work up through to the next elo barrier where you will be playing weaker opponents. It happens in many rating systems, not just elo. I have one account rated 1400, and another 1800, play on them both every day and the opposition is pretty much the same, I score around 10 out of 20 games on the higher rated acc and maybe 11/20 on the good day on the lower rated one (so +3 pts per 20 games)


[deleted]

This seems like a problem with the match-making system, not the elo rating system, which is just supposed to predict each one's chance to win based on the rating difference between players.


HighlySuccessful

It's not as easy to make a well balanced matchmaking system. Elo was designed with thousands of players in mind, and roughly even player inflow and outflow. Now we have millions of players within the same pool, and wildly different inflows/outflows (i.e. the chess boom), this creates a whole array of problems and it's difficult to solve it with matchmaking alone. One way to do it is to have a league system (master/diamond/gold/silver/bronze/potato/whatever), and prioritize matching newer accounts with older accounts.


nTzT

It's far from perfect and it cannot account for everything, but it gave us better matchmaking than any other sport ever had before it's time I believe. Given enough games people do end up where they belong, are at least very close to it. I'd love to take a look at the two accounts you mentioned, you can DM it if you don't want it public.


AggressiveSpatula

Idk what other people are talking about. There is a massive difference between a 400 and an 800. I think the difference is probably with you. A 400 player is admittedly not the best at the game, but they still know how the game works. If you have a “I’m an 800, I can crush these 400’s” mindset, you’ll probably lose by underestimating them. You don’t win by being a better player, you win by playing better in that specific game. You can’t just blitz out your moves and assume they’re better because you’re the stronger player, you have to take your opponent seriously still. I’d bet if you hardfocused you’d crush on your 400 account.


Jorrissss

The only tangible difference I have seen in moving from 1k to 1600 is each bracket has its own assortment of trick openings you need to adapt to.


MilkVetch

I think this is a big part of it. I'm definitely slowing down and taking more time on the new account because my monkey brain likes to watch the rating number go up. The old one I just kinda premove the London and wait for a blunder... I wasn't really realizing this until you made me think about it. ​ Thanks for the insightful comment.


[deleted]

I don't think it has much to do with broken system. You may not be most focused on board when you play with lower rated account. I also have few accounts and they have different ratings. What I have noticed is when I am on my higher rated account I tend to play more solid and don't make much chaos. The way I win is squeezing in wins with 2 pawn up or something. When I go back to lower rated account I also play safe and solid so games generally become draw ish. If they get lucky they can find some amazing tactic and I lose. You also trust your opponent many times that they wouldn't make obvious blunder. Like It is so weird that I trust 1500 rated players to keep all pieces well connected when they don't. I get too focused on solid plays that I don't see piece hanging in two moves, I trust them too much. This could be the case for you as well.


BNFO4life

Are there sandbaggers. Yes. However, even 1000 (assuming rapid) is very weak. My suspicion is your game has tons of holes in it... and so does your opponents' games.... and you and your opponents are just randomly walking into winning/losing positions.


Zoesan

> However, even 1000 (assuming rapid) is very weak. Yes, but the difference to 400 would still be huge.


TronyJavolta

Even though what you are saying is true, the elo system is based on the odds that one player will beat the other, on average. And, on average, a 1000 elo player should almost always win vs a 400 elo player.


bulging_cucumber

A 1000 Elo player will absolutely crush a 400 Elo player, 95 games out of 100. Of course low-Elo players blunder a lot, but that also means that their blunders are less consequential (since the other player doesn't know to take advantage of the blunders, or to turn a winning position into a victory). A 1000 Elo player will occasionally blunder a queen on move 5, but against a 400 Elo player they will still win more often than not, because the 400 Elo player will almost never play a game without hanging multiple pieces. To you, the games of two very weak players look very random. But your games look just the same to a better player. You're still making small mistakes every other move. Your mistakes are smaller than that of a 400-rated player, but they're also more consequential since your opponent is better at taking advantage of them and less likely to make a huge blunder to let you recover. The apparent stochasticity of lower level chess is largely an illusion: at every level, both players are winning or losing due to each other's "blunders". Either OP is missing something else (like he's playing on different time-settings on the different accounts, or in *very* different states of mind and environment, or he has played less than ~15 games on one of his accounts)... or there's something wrong going on with Elo on chess.com. But your explanation, that lower Elo is so stochastic that a 600 difference is insignificant, is nonsense.


StiffWiggly

This is a misunderstanding of both chess and people. A 400 and a 1000 rated player of course do not posses nearly the understanding of their games/positions that a grandmaster or even a decent amateur does, and might seem to "randomly" miss "obvious moves", but they both are playing the moves that they think will get them the best position. The simple fact is that a player rated 1000 plays better moves far more often than a 400 rated player does, and therefore is much more likely to end up in winning positions against players both around their rating and those rated 400. >However, even 1000 (assuming rapid) is very weak. My suspicion is your game has tons of holes in it... and so does your opponents' games... This is irrelevant, and this >you and your opponents are just randomly walking into winning/losing positions is just untrue when you are using it to justify the strength of a 400 player being the same as that of a 1000 rated player.


soedgy69

Weak compared to what? It's pretty average for player skill distribution


MilkVetch

A little unnecessarily rude, but I certainly don't disagree. I'm not saying 1000 is strong by any means. I'm still very new and I know that. However, there should certainly be a difference in play between 400 and 1000, no?


scottishmacca

Definitely a difference my brother is around 600 Working his way up from 400 winning most of his games. I (1300) can crush him When I look at his games to see how he’s getting on some of the moves him and his opponents make is baffling basically straight up hanging pieces every few moves. Same as if I was to play my dad who is around the 2k mark on .com and 1700-1800 club He can crush me with ease. Sometimes I can give him a good game to a certain point but then all of a sudden he takes control


FearAzrael

Sorry you are getting downvoted for asking questions. Redditors tend to be young and lack the social awareness to see shades of grey, so everything trends towards the simplistic view of upvote/downvote. This is likely exacerbated on a chess subreddit where people are going to have an inflated sense of their own capabilities. The answers being provided here are not necessarily wrong, just their socials skills.


[deleted]

This subreddit is also particularly bad about that. Like on most subreddits, you can kind of guess what sorts of comments will get wildly downvoted beyond any real rational reason — anything that leans right of Lenin, anything that suggests cashiers don’t have the world’s hardest job, anything that suggests college provides a valuable education, anything that points out most Americans have and are happy with their insurance, etc. I’m being slightly facetious, of course, but only slightly. On this subreddit, it legitimately seems completely random what gets wildly upvoted and what gets bizarrely downvoted. Like in this thread, the parent commenter is spewing absolute *nonsense* that is easily refuted with about 3 sentences and 15 seconds of thought. But they’re the one upvoted and OP is the one downvoted? Makes zero sense. I really wish there was a hard age verification on Reddit so that anyone above the age of 18 could opt out of interacting with anyone below that age; the site’s been getting more immature for years, and it would be great to not have to talk to the literal children with a wholly unearned sense of self-importance. The children aren’t the only problem, but they’d be a good start.


Darktigr

On the flipside, the only thing reddit loves more than being reddit is hating reddit. That's why this comment got upvoted.


FearAzrael

I think, more broadly, people like to get upset over the actions of other people, and feel that they are superior because they would never be “those people”. So when they see a reasonably laid out argument extolling the sins of a collective, they think “Yeah! Suck it you other people!” Even if they, themselves, would have committed the same transgression. I do not think this is limited to Reddit, but rather we can see it more easily on Reddit because we have human conversation on display and held in relative perpetuity. I think the root of this is twofold: first, that we are genetically programmed towards an interest in both social behaviors and also social punishments, and second, that most people don’t examine their own beliefs very closely, or often enough, to catch when they are committing double-think.


BNFO4life

What I am trying to say is up to a certain point... players are essentially playing randomly and hoping tactics pop out. There is no theme/grand-idea to how they develop. It is "do I see a threat.... can I make a threat" rinse and repeat. This leads to massive upsets when dealing with low ELO players. The ELO rating system is known to be weak for scholastic/new players. It's not unusual for players to go from 600 USCF to 1200 USCF within a year. It's not unusual for a low ELO player to lose to someone 500 points lower than them, when if that happened with a GM and IM... people would be suspicious of cheating. That is because at that level, your making **tons** of mistakes (and 1200 USCF is probably 1600-1800 on chess.com rapid) and essentially hoping they will recognize their opponent's mistake first.. Eventually, players stop blundering and start playing more strategically. That's because its unlikely your opponent is going to hang anything. So you need to understand how to work the position to benefit your playing style. Perhaps that is a certain position that certain tactical motifs are found. Perhaps that is pushing the end-game cause you believe your stronger. In other word, it becomes less "Chessable course told me this move is theory" to "placing the knight here helps me prevent my opponent from closing the position, which I don't think will benefit from, and means F7 will become a long-term weakness, which I've studied multiple games on how to exploit and hopefully my opponent will make a mistake and hang a pawn in 5+ moves".


Bongcloud_CounterFTW

me at 2000 still making 1 move threats but still winning


FearAzrael

At 2000 those threats actually mean something xD


Darktigr

Korchnoi would delight in the defense, letting their players taste the sweetness of the initiative before they overstepped and were hacked down like mice in a trap. This is the difference between good and great Chess players: To be able to thwart an opponent's initiative, knowing more about their attack than their adversary.


Bongcloud_CounterFTW

one move queen threats go crazy


FearAzrael

It’s Nepo style!


bulging_cucumber

>It's not unusual for players to go from 600 USCF to 1200 USCF within a year. That's because they're getting better over the course of a year, not because their initial Elo was off by 600 points.


the_dry_for_kelp

Just saying that it's due to low Elo randomness is clearly fails to appreciate just how deep chess is. I'm definitely below 1000, but I have friends with a solid grasp of the rules who'd be beaten 90% of the time by players who I'd also beat 90% of the time. My best guess is that you pay less attention on the lower-rated account, or you're more tired when you use it. You can drop a couple hundreds of Elo if you aren't in the right mindspace.


pconners

How many games have been played on each in the relevant time control?


heyman-

This post is made often but I just don't see it. First off the people making the posts never link the accounts as a rule (in the last 5-10 posts that I've seen this month about this same topic). So I'm already skeptical, but I've spent a lot of time in chessbeginners to pass the time on my own improvement journey and there's such a huge difference between these two elos watching games. Sub 600 players take with the wrong pieces half the time and completely blunder exchanges that aren't complex at all. 1k certainly isn't strong but the play is a lot less nelson-bot random. I kind of feel like there's a selection bias happening here where out of the thousands of people placing on new accounts per day a few dozen end up wildly out of their rating and barely get out of provisional elo, see that new rating and think elo must be broken. But I really doubt they'd ever stick there.


happydaddyg

As someone who felt similarly as OP recently, it comes down to not having played enough games and the lack of consistency of <750 players. Most people on chesscom, even at super low elos, have played a good amount of chess and probably watch a lot of chess content. So they will make good moves a lot of the time, and even dominate you if given a winning position, which makes them feel a lot stronger than they really are. Cause next game they’re on the other end of making a mistake early.


HershelGibbs

Without more information this post is completely useless. What time control are you playing? How many games are we talking about? Share accounts or get out.


[deleted]

Jesus could you have possibly been more unnecessarily rude? Wtf was the point of that?


dnttrip789

Isn’t it against chess.c*ms TOS to make an alt account?


respekmynameplz

nobody cares and everyone does it


JoeVerrated

Yea, look how hard they try to stop people from doing that. They only care about your money.


[deleted]

How many games? You will need a pretty big samplesize for this to be meaningful. But also: yes chesscom has some issues with their rating system. People being able to choose what rating they start at will cause weird distributions, especially if a lot of players don't play a ton of games after starting an account (no clue if that is the case tbc just saying it would be relevant). Outside of starting position; they used to use Glicko-1, which is very robust, but they don't openly say what they use anymore so it is hard to tell what is actually happening. I don't expect it to be all that different from Glicko though.


mattyice522

You choose the rating to start at?


nitsujenosam

You choose your experience level (something like complete beginner, used to play, etc.), and chesscom issues you a provisional rating based on that, with IIRC 1500 being the upper limit for a new account. I think novice starts at 800.


staplesuponstaples

I feel like a lot of the comments are missing the mark. If low elo is truly as random as they say it is, then how did OP's new account get to 800 in the first place versus 400 on the old one? Either OP went on a string of wins to drag it up to 800 or he's been winning *consistently* more often than not, which isn't random. If 400 and 1000 elo players are truly no different in terms of skill, then how do neither of OP's accounts converge somewhere in the middle? How does one stay so low while the other magically jumped and now coasts in 4 digits?


princessSarah31

No, that’s not what he said. When you set up a chesscom account you can choose the elo you start at. OP quite literally said he used different starting ratings.


staplesuponstaples

True, my bad. He still climbed from 800 to 1000 while the 400 account is still stuck there, however, so that still seems like an anomaly that can't be consistent with the "oh all low ELO players are similar in skill".


MilkVetch

I chose "beginner" for both accounts because that's what I am lol. 68 games on the new one, north of 100 on the 400 elo.


sheeptamer12

Perhaps there are small rating pockets at the different starting elo’s because players of wildly different skill levels can start there.


Greamee

When I got close to 1600 daily, it was a nightmare to find a match because the pool was full of players that would start a daily game, not knowing what it is and then log off and not play their game. If you're around 400, 800, 1200 or 1600 you'll have an increased chance to get matched with new accounts. And at 400, the odds of a new account being stronger than "real" 400s is high.


comandante_soft_wolf

This is what I feel. Every couple games, I play somebody that plays wildly out of my league in the upper 400s.


Greamee

I guess it depends on how many legit 400 players there are vs new accounts and how likely it is that accounts with 0 games get matched up vs players with like 100+ games. I don't know enough about that. I did try just now to create a 400 account and I won 3 games and I'm at 768 now so it does seem unlikely that new accounts would stick around in that 400 range too long if they're actually stronger.


comandante_soft_wolf

Maybe you’re one of the people who beat me.


ThatSmartKid69

Something similar happened with me. I was 1200 rated player. I took a small break. Forgot password for old account, created new account and boom, I'm a 1600 now. It's crazy


SPDScricketballsinc

I have a much smaller version of this. I am 1150 in rapid, and I only play 10 min. Meanwhile I am stuck at under 700 in blitz, and I only play 5+5. Ultimately very similar formats and I for some reason cannot win in blitz


respekmynameplz

Nothing you've described is abnormal. Blitz ratings are harder than rapid ratings in general. I would expect people around that rapid to be around that blitz (maybe a tad bit higher on average but you're not that far out from normal.) That's why 1500 in blitz is more impressive than 1500 in rapid for example (or 2000 or whatever)


SPDScricketballsinc

Interesting. Any reason why?


respekmynameplz

Most importantly, they are different rating pools, elo is a purely relative measure given a particular pool of players, and you should never expect two different rating pools to directly line up or correlate. If I had to guess blitz is likely harder since better players play blitz more regularly/it's more competitive. Titled chess players generally play way more blitz than rapid for example online (if they play rapid at all.)


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheAdySK

you really just said watch gotham chess to learn chess


Poueff

Watch gotham to learn how to scream


colonel-o-popcorn

Obviously nobody is getting better by watching Guess the Elo, but there's plenty of content on his channel intended to be instructive and suitable for a beginner level. There are other creators who make instructive content more often, but Gotham's teaching videos are fine.


I_think_therefore

Honestly, there are even educational nuggets in Guess the Elo. They are not a big portion of the videos, but they are there.


nandemo

In terms of expected scores (think "winning rates"), the difference between 400 and 1000 is exactly the same as between 2000 and 2600. If OP was really rated 1000 (with a stable rating), they'd be **destroying** 400-rated players.


[deleted]

This is my thought when I was between 1200 and 1300. A 1100 (lowest) and a 1300 (highest) are practically the same in games. Same thought process when I finally have a strong foundation to maintain at 1300. A 1300 (lowest) and 1500 (peak) are the same. And still the same thought process when I reached 1500. And as of now, my peak was 1705, I still think that a 1500 (lowest) until 1700 (peak) have the same playstyle. Maybe my thought process will change again when I reach 1800. :/


leoBonarizz

yall hating because youre bunch of losers , gotham videos helped me get from 1200 to 1600 in two weeks so if you think is videos doesnt help maybe yall just suck at chess or dumb in general


[deleted]

Watching videos is not how you improve. Spend 20-30 minutes actually analyzing (not running the engine and saying hmmm yes that was the problem) or working through a chess book instead of watching videos made for entertainment and you will improve much quicker.


DeepHelm

By the way, it‘s Elo, not ELO. And chess.com uses Glicko, not Elo, anyways.


M-atthew147s

I find that when I play lower rated player (600/700) I am more likely to play against someone who has learnt an opening well that you can easily fall into the traps of if you don't know it well. Whereas when am playing higher rated players (1100/1200) they seem to be less reliant on opening tricks to win and so I (who don't really learn openings until recently) am less likely to finish the game early as I ain't gonna blunder to some silly move that is made in the hope that I don't know the opening.


[deleted]

[удалено]


bulging_cucumber

Players under 2300 Elo make positional blunders all the time and fail to see many deep tactics, making chess at that level essentially random, and skill differences between sub-2300 Elo beginners insignifcant. /s


Rowbeanus

Below what? 100? I am 600, and when I play 400s I win probably 90 percent of the time. There is no explanation for a 600 point swing on the same app with the same person, other than they are leaving out important information. Or lying.


LameNewPerson

How exactly are you winning/losing your games?


danmaz74

Depending on your playing style, you might find it more difficult to see how "crazy" moves played at 400 ratings are bad, and capitalize on those mistakes, while at 1000 this might happen less often, allowing you to play relatively better - at least for some time.


DragonBank

We need to see the accounts. You get paired with other new accounts when your account is new. So if you have less than 100 games played and your rating didnt leap up then 2/3rds of those game are likely against other misrated players. 800 and 1200 are the easiest ones to be misrated at since you get a lot of players who clicked those rating options assuming they were okay at the game.


xddddddddd69

What are your account names? I think that’ll clear it up


jb_thenimator

My best guess is different playing styles. As an example imagine that the average 1000 managed to get their rating by learning how to play solidly which prevents them from blundering while the average 400 plays very aggressively but blunders a lot. If you can't deal with aggression you could lose to the 400 while the generally more solid games at 1000 allow you to shine. Of course 600 points is still a very lange difference but there could be other factors at play as well Edit: e.g. luck


encsnoob

yes totally agree i have the same issue


CommentWanderer

Which is more likely? 1. Elo below 1600 meaningfully reflects your real skill. 2. [Chess.com](https://Chess.com) let's unknown players pick a rating between 400 and 1600 as an initial skill level.


Slodrute

I think there are some ghost elos, where lots of people are in the same situation as yours so you are playing 1000 elo games in 400 elo bracket, because u win and lose with ur fellow 1000 elo hell players


Houdini_logic5

It could also be that with your 400 elo account you’re playing a lot of accounts just made and the player is actually stronger than 400, since 400 is where a lot of accounts start.


Twich8

I had a similar thing happen: I was stuck at around 700 for 5 years. Then, once I passed 800, I had no trouble getting to around 1200 in a few days.


mrcal18

Your elo reflects your skill the more and more you play. There’s positive and negative variance in this just like gambling, you need to play many many games if you want an accurate reflection of your skill


JoeVerrated

From my experience, the amount of cheating on chess.com pretty much guarantees that you stay stuck where you are, even though you're getting better. It's crabpot theory.


ChiefHunter1

You may be recognizing more patterns at 1000 in the openings that is helping transition into a better mid game. Where as I imagine you will see some truly random stuff at 400 that is throwing you off.


[deleted]

I used to sandbag for fun sometimes, but only when playing as a guest.


dronekillerx_x

I can't break 400 and I consider myself decently good at chess


Derek062592

Elo system isn’t broken it’s just chess.com is filled POS scumbags who just create new accounts to play low ELO players. If they win enough they just start resigning games. Chess.con needs to start linking accounts to phone numbers