Ratings are Overrated
Submitted by
on Tue, 08/25/2009 at 9:42pm.
ranting on rating
If there is one I can say for sure, it is that ratings are overrated.
In the beginning of 2007 my rating was 1400 something. I hadn't played much actual chess since I began playing in 97-99, 10-12 years ago . I went to University and 8 years later I decided I wanted to learn more. I played blitz for most of the time in between--online and with friends-- and had even studied a bit. Then my life situation changed and chess took the place of music in my free time, as it seemed a much more tangible and applicable art.
In chess, the road to mastery is somewhat more objectively attainable, or at least based less on one's personal taste and aesthetics--like playing the piano is for me. 24 years playing the piano andno one can say whether I am or am not a master with any more certainty than they can say that what I'm playing is "good" or "bad". Not so with chess, although I wouldn't say one ever stops learning in chess or that a 2200 rating isequivalent to a mastery of the game!
I had decided to play again in late 2006 to study for the big prize at the World Open. I began taking lessons from an FM on the French and Benko in 2006 and early 2007, trying to make my odds of winning higher. As it were, I played in the u1600 and won quite a bit of money. Had I been active and current, who knows what section I would have been in. if it weren't for my lousy "Touch move" issues I get from time to time, I'd have done a lot better--thousands more went to the two who scored higher than I did. (World Open)
I needed to win. I am a bouncer between what one would call 'side gigs'-- serving tables, barista jobs, blackjack dealer, etc. With as much education and travel experience I have been blessed with, I was always lacking in financial means and business ambitions, and I get the jobs I can. It dawned on me that the 7 years of pattern recognition and experience I was sitting on (and the fact that my online ratings were way above what my OTB would be) was a good chance to win extra income that I needed at that point. I seriously had to win because I loaned entry fee and plane fare.
Within that week I was re-rated from 1400 whatever to the upper 1600s-- So I thought I'd try the next CCA section up. I waited 6 months until the next big tourney, the North American Open, and played in the u1700. Again I couldn't afford to lose. I lost once, and narrowly missed 1st place. I had gotten another stack, almost 3000 US Dollars, for my efforts, which didn't last long of course. Still, in my experience it pays to not have a good rating :)
I went back (although for free--not on my dime) and tried the NAO u1900 in 08' to test the waters. I withdrew very early after a loss avoid further rating gain/loss. I had went below 1800, where I'm staying for now. I didn't feel outmatched by the competition at that level, and maybe I could have even won the last three rounds and made money, but I wasn't ready. I didn't respect the board and kept playing the player, thinking "there's no way they'll get this move correct"...but they did. I l had tried to steamroller my way through those players in the same way--closed positional chess with good endgame planning--but still managed to make some dumb mistakes (including a non-fatal touch move in a game I won). I came back to prepare. How much prep? I'm playing on chess.com--practicing with you crazies--for the World open 2011, my next scheduled tourney!
I ask again: Why would I want rating points?!? I'd rather have good odds every once in a while. In fact, I want to *know* that I'm at least capable of outplaying people in a section before I spend 400 bucks trying! :)
Now I am a volunteer librarian at the chess center, I teach chess to a few friends and try to write on the subject more often, telling stories of my lessons with various chess stars, and I study quite a bit: I even pay the fee here for access to video lectures--but not for a rating. My drive to watch a GM's chess game or study a book is as a fan of chess now. It's no longer about win/lose competition so much as an awe of how much more there is to learn--constantly--from this game. Still, since they're flooring me higher every time, I might as well get those points from bigger events.
"He judged his winning chances by assessing my rating to determine my ability to play the ending. I knew he was Russian--I thought I had no chances."
Ilya R. (couldn't prounounce it if I tried), a Russian (or Ukrainian) opponent of mine at the 07 NAO tournament, dueled with me through a grinding 110-move game where such accuracy was required that both of us were literally sweating trying to calculate the endgame details and races. The ending had no color--material equality in a Rook and Pawn, only imbalanced by local majorities on the wings.
Still-even after THAT long of a game if I'm not mistaken, my opponent was only ONE move behind me preventing what appeared at first to be an unreachable lucena position (he had frontal rook distance vs a pawn on the 4th rank, while I was only able to cut the enemy king off by one file--very sharp stuff). Needless to say, neither one of us were having a problem in the u1700 section, both sporting perfect 5/5 in the tournament to that point.
In what seemed like the 3rd endgame type of the game (simplification-maneuvers--simplification, etc), the win came out of a book-drawn position where I had "defended" against the Reti opening proper with b3, one of my pet lines. The situation became an impasse, but when I offered a draw, my opponent fell into the "draw refusal trap" and lost by insisting on making "Progress" in the game. It must be that my 1799 or American attitude implied
"swindleability" or that I was underprepared. This player could easily have been 2100-2300, as he went on to win every other game, mostly by Caro-Kanns and Reti's--not exactly ambitious openings for decisive results.
So he declined, but as we know, disturbing a balanced battlefield situation to regroup results invariably in releasing key territory, at which time an alert opponent might invade. By playing to win, you lose, in other words.
After the game we analyzed, and I was impressed. I told him he could have played in a stronger section. Ilya looked up at me and said "You're not a 1600 player either."
Oh, but I was, and so was he. It's just that ratings are simply hard data from the players past: it's very dangerous to assume that you're going to win because you're playing 600 points down because, unlike kung-fu fighting or realtime combat, chess masters don't use different forms. Knights go like an "L". Castles go in straight lines . The pointy one is diagonal.
If you ask enough questions and equip yourself with the right knowledge, you might turn out to be the "1200" player that capitalizes on a World Champion's mistake one day--they have made and still make lots of them! You can be a super strong player yet not compete well, also. Still, I'm torn about being judged on my 'number', although it was really fun calling myself a 1400 since I was winning so many games against people who didn't expect to lose.
Then again, who cares what people take as their measurement of chess stength, be it rating, tactics, win/loss ratio, whatever. I'll let my rating rise only in the events when I have done enough work to feel that my odds are worth the some 400 dollar fee. I can play chess here and at the club, stress free.
Still I've heard the sandbagger word a few times, more than once from who I assume were parents of chessplayers at tournaments. I apparently (in an act of intimidation) only used 3-5 minutes total in a 40/2 SD/1 game and rushed this kid into making mistakes, something his father thought an unhonorable tactic. Wah. Call a Wahmbulence and order me some french cries and a Wahmburger--the number's Whine one one. I'm not a sandbagger--I play to win.
I suppose I could go play a bunch of low-money tournaments until I break a 2000 rating, but what would that accomplish? I don't really feel the need for status, unless it's in 1 minute chess champ of bongo java, that is.
Instead of the rating and tourney game, I would prefer years of study followed by a smashing u1800 victory at the world open 2011. A good chance of winning a section is in fact the only real financial compensation for chess books and study time that I've gotten!
I don't think it's immoral at all to maintain such rating disparities if they are in fact naturally occuring. Your rating adjusts to the players you play in any case, not against the game of chess itself.
Even on this site, various ratings are different due to the standard player and the Gliko system. For instance on chess.com, I've plateau'ed and hovered in these 150 point ranges:
2050-2200 Online
1700-1850 Quick
2000-2150 Bullet
1850 Long (although I haven't played enough of this control to know).
meanwhile others like tactics trainer or mentor give out crazy ratings. mine are 2408 and 2617, respectively. more evidence that ratings mean no more than boxed results. technically I suppose you could "flag" your way to becoming a GM, although I don't know if you'd be respected :)
Numbers cannot in a simple manner quantify one's chess strength. I could go (and have gone) around bragging that I was only 1600 and won a WCL game against Larry Christiansen [I admit it was simply a lucky and rare GM blunder, bad sacrifice, in a simul], When I talk about the game, though, I realize that the part about me and my skill doesn't really make a difference. Even at top level, a game is lost, not won. In fact, the post-blunder state of the game is "won". So-- remember--winning is the natural state of your game after your opponent has blundered, and it is, literally, yours to lose.
In sum, ratings are a simple number, descriptive of past results. They do not account for external variables such as comfort and health of the player, nor do they consider swindled games and blundered pieces-- Results only.
There are player vs player, style, disparities as well. Some players who are "2200 plus" I find don't do well against the hypermodern systems I chose, and yet when I play an IQP position, I get destroyed. Are they 2200 QGD/1800 Benoni? How's that work?
Most importantly, ratings aren't prescriptive of how a well a player will play against you. Chess is a system of logic, and however unlikely, logic proves that it is possible in a random game and in fact guaranteed in an infinite repetition of games to "accidentally" play perfectly--we've all heard that a million monkeys with typewriters writing infinitely will eventually produce a recreation or Shakespeare, so the argument that one should care in a self-conscious way about their rating is fundamentally unsound.
On the other hand, consistency, ability, and willpower/determination are just a few of many variables that one might legitimately try to determine one's chess strength by examining. Although rating points might fluctuate up and maybe even drop drastically, the student of the game generally moves forward in understanding and pattern recognition--key elements for a real assessment of one's highly subjective "skill level".
Again--Rating is nothing more than a compiled history of match results! Some are players, some problem composers, while others excel at correspondence. I like bullet chess!
Things to remember:
- Don't assume rating will predict accurate stats for winning and losing. A rating will never say who will win a game. The player who made the latest, worst mistake lost the game. You only win when they lose, right?
Some players score well against certain higher rated players , gaining upset after upset on their compromised deficiency(ies). Since players change, I think it's safe to say that no two 1244 rated players are the same strength at chess :)
- All advanced students should know that a loss in chess is educationally beneficial. Aa win supplies a feeling of achievement--positive reinforcement for your current level of understanding and play--that has a negative, opposite effect. It's counter-intuitive, but true.
Why? It is hard to "fix" what doesn't feel broken, in a way. When you're winning, you don't strive to adapt. Losing is great for you, an opportunity. The sooner a player understands his mistakes, the sooner they start adapting. A rating doesn't do anything at all for you except present expectations that you will win or lose--expectations that good players ignore anyway. An 1800 Nashville player may be a 2200 in one part of Cali, from what I can tell. Expectation breeds disappointment!
- Don't be fooled by others' ratings, attire, demeanor, facial expressions or other externals [don't let your hubris be the thing that loses a drawn position]
If you, for example, think you should deactivate your king because you're sure you can swindle a low rated player in an obviously equal ending, don't. You will eventually lose, as my opponent did when he ran into another "u1700 drive-by" trying to get "comp" for the time and money spent on chess study/books. Of course, he underestimated my endgame skills and I more than overestimated his, on account of our national origins and cultural stereotypes, but neither is healthy.
Meniscus says:
Ratings are overrated. When you play an opponent, think of them not as a number, but as who they really are: 8 pieces and 8 pawns.
Anti-Glossary [Contradictionary]
1. The Non-Definition of Sandbagging :
A lack of rating ambition OTB is not sandbagging. I never have nor will sandbag [intentionally lose] chess games to drop in rating points.
2. The Non-Definition of Rating:
A rating is not a superior intellect, acquired skill, accurate source for predicting outcomes, nor its desparity a right to resign. A certain rating level does not describe things outside of match results.