Rating progress
Question is "doing the circles does it pay off" ?
My yearly progress
I played only 10 OTB games this year. The average strenght of my opponents was 1582.
Range:1513-1739
Rating increase of 103 points to 1668. I think I have climbed in 2 and 1/2 years time about 219 points. It is not so impressive as MDLM but I am quite satisfied. However, let's focus on the amount of games and we get a rather different picture. I played about 31 rated games since Jan 2005 which I hardly can call much. MDLM played about 20 tournament games a month if I am not mistaken. So I should raise the amount of tournament games if I want to increase more sharply.
I assume that an average of 25 would be fine with premisses that you play opponents above your current rating which ends for 80% in a victory. The more wins you have the less games you have to play to induce a substantial increase. So the large amount of games that MDLM played were surely not necessary. The biggest increase in my playing strenght, I think was due to avoid inacurracies in calculating, and (I only calculate when I think that position becomes critical (dangerous word)) avoiding mistakes. (I mainly focussed on 2 tactics, double attacks and pins)
So the question remains: "doing the circles does it pay off"
Well, it sure helps
I am on leave for three weeks. Enjoy your summer holidays.
If I am quite correct, Tempo wrote in one of his previous posts about the amount of games you should play to have an increase of 100 points. I played 10 games got a score of 8. Does it fit the bill?
My yearly progress
I played only 10 OTB games this year. The average strenght of my opponents was 1582.
Range:1513-1739
Rating increase of 103 points to 1668. I think I have climbed in 2 and 1/2 years time about 219 points. It is not so impressive as MDLM but I am quite satisfied. However, let's focus on the amount of games and we get a rather different picture. I played about 31 rated games since Jan 2005 which I hardly can call much. MDLM played about 20 tournament games a month if I am not mistaken. So I should raise the amount of tournament games if I want to increase more sharply.
I assume that an average of 25 would be fine with premisses that you play opponents above your current rating which ends for 80% in a victory. The more wins you have the less games you have to play to induce a substantial increase. So the large amount of games that MDLM played were surely not necessary. The biggest increase in my playing strenght, I think was due to avoid inacurracies in calculating, and (I only calculate when I think that position becomes critical (dangerous word)) avoiding mistakes. (I mainly focussed on 2 tactics, double attacks and pins)
So the question remains: "doing the circles does it pay off"
Well, it sure helps
I am on leave for three weeks. Enjoy your summer holidays.
If I am quite correct, Tempo wrote in one of his previous posts about the amount of games you should play to have an increase of 100 points. I played 10 games got a score of 8. Does it fit the bill?
posted by Montse at 12:29 PM
2 Comments:
For some reason your blog was disappeared from my automatic blog monitor. So I didn't notice your posts. You get about 15 points per game against equal resistance, so 8 wins= +120
Have a fine vacation!
it varies by where you play--i.e. ICC or FICS as far as internet play goes,
at the prior you loose less against a ++ elo, but the latter, more driven by RD while, of course, being affected by your opponents rating. but if i beat a 1650 at lightning at the latter, i get 14 elo, but when i beat a 1650 at ICC, i get 26 or so, etc. i much prefer the latter.
at FICS if beat a 1290 at lighting (0/4 or 3:00 for 40 moves), i get maybe 8, for a 1350 maybe 10, but only 14 or so if MUCH higher rated. strange. if i beat someone 250 elo above me, i want a lot of elo for it!
100 elo means a 33% chance of winning, 200 elo 10%, and 300 elo maybe 3%.
enjoy the break, and time with your daughter.
Post a Comment
<< Home