Do players actually get better with time?

[Diet_Coke is better than chess]

e.g Do players with a 100 games have a higher average rating than say players with 25?

[Johnny5]

I had a higher rating after 100 games than after 25

[Diet_Coke is better than chess]

Did your rise continue?

[Johnny5]

My rating steadily rose until I started to play you then it soared ;D

[Diet_Coke is better than chess]

Taught you everything I know.

[perseus]

If like me, I had not played for 20 years or more, after a while my ratings increased. That was not surprising as I lost ten and drew one of my first eleven matches, so I would have expected it to go up. But mostly, it was the silly obvious mistakes through lack of practice, they still occur, but not so often. Then there are the opening and strategic and tactical mistakes that get found out and the changes to rectify these , if I remember the order of moves .....

www.stansco.com/cgi-bin/nc_ppp.cgi?20938

[yassen]

spazreborn said:

e.g Do players with a 100 games have a higher average rating than say players with 25?

Some players get better with time, some don't. Some players who do are those that: analyse their games (especially their losses); study classic games of masters; study opening theory; study endgames (very important) etc.......Also, younger players tend to get better with time, while since you reach certain age it becomes harder, but you still can get better even at relatively old age (especially if we talk about CC and not faster-paced OTB chess).

However, the difference between the rating after 25 and 100 games does not have much to do with this question. First, because the rating system at Stan's is not perfect and 25 games are too few to determine the "real" rating of a player, and second because there is a rating inflation.

I used to have a 2100+ rating during my early days at Stan's, then I slowly increased to 2200, then 2300 and then 2400+. However this does not represent a true increase in strength. Actually, I think I was a better chessplayer 10 years ago (when I was 20), then I am now...

[savin]

Yassen,

I don't think there is really any rating inflation in the new rating system. In fact, if anything, we might have a slight deflation problem but its statistically very hard to tell.

For instance, in your case we have your rating tracked from June 2001 through to the current date. After 25 games your rating was about 1910. Since then you have had an all time low of 1820 which came in August 2002 and an all time high of 2012 in February 2004. For the most part your rating has been arounf 1880-1970 throughout and at the last rating run of 1974.

What we have seen statistically is that some players who are returning to chess after a long layoff do tend to improve 100-150 rating points in the first 12 months.

The new rating system does have some rating suppression rules that impact higher rating players first established rating. This could result in a new establihed higher rated player starting out with a rating 100-120 points below where they should be (in the worse case). But this will correct itself within 5-10 games.

[dan3]

I learn from other people beating me becuase once I get beat that way I normaly do not get beat that way again.

[perseus]

A very interesting question.

I find that my results have improved since I returned after not playing for 25 years. Now plateauing out as I obtain the same standard as when I stopped.

I could gather a few extras by reading one or two books to improve mostly the end game, try to change my personal psychology (this is mostly OTB where I rush my moves to ease up on the time), learn my openings (which I don't know any by rote, only some by habit).

I did find that I was losing quite often by white (on Stan's). I tried to refine my opening, but it brought up as many problems as it solved.

In some respects, especially OTB, I have fallen in standard, I cannot outhink my opponents so well in complicated positions. This is a bit unfortunate as my usually strategy was to make the game as complicated as possible and trust that I would win the melee. On reflection, often I did not (I often missed a killing move).