What is a normal rate of increase in ones rating ?

... w/o coaching nor practice beyond play?
Like most, i started around .85-.9 K and have kissed 1.4, but soon get thumpt back to my more typical 1.25-1.5 So by my math ~ + .325 K / 2 -3 years & ~ 250 games or so.
I'd like to see some graphed data on this.
Heres one i playen like a jr. master ... if not gm : }

http://www.redhotpawn.com/chess/play-chess.php?gameid=10812470&cbqsid=6852

Originally posted by elassasino
... w/o coaching nor practice beyond play?
Like most, i started around .85-.9 K and have kissed 1.4, but soon get thumpt back to my more typical 1.25-1.5 So by my math ~ + .325 K / 2 -3 years & ~ 250 games or so.
I'd like to see some graphed data on this.
Heres one i playen like a jr. master ... if not gm : }

http://www.redhotpawn.com/chess/play-chess.php?gameid=10812470&cbqsid=6852

Most people's "rate of increase" is ZERO.
Take a look at the graphs - (look at mine)

You cannot expect to get better and better and better.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Most people's "rate of increase" is ZERO.
Take a look at the graphs - (look at mine)

You cannot expect to get better and better and better.

No one ever improves, the other players just get weaker. 😕

Originally posted by elassasino
... w/o coaching nor practice beyond play?
Like most, i started around .85-.9 K and have kissed 1.4, but soon get thumpt back to my more typical 1.25-1.5 So by my math ~ + .325 K / 2 -3 years & ~ 250 games or so.
I'd like to see some graphed data on this.
Heres one i playen like a jr. master ... if not gm : }

http://www.redhotpawn.com/chess/play-chess.php?gameid=10812470&cbqsid=6852

Play good moves and the ratings will sort themselves out.

hmm not much out there on this topic eh? It would seem a prime data set for some EdPsych type graduate student to investigate.
I'm betting theres a tight learning/experience curve up to ~ 1350, much beyond & i'm thinking you've got to start considering a coach or some serious readings ... tho im sure the local exceptions will dispute that! Anyone else wanna describe what they've experienced per 100 games ?
A related phenomena is the typical undulation of our (newbies) ratings; almost a bio-rythem ?

My highest rating seems to have gone up by about 70 points in 7 years. Reckon anyone who's done better than that is probably cheating by reading books or some other skulgarry.

Actually I don't think it's as simple as that because I reckon I've become more consistent over that time. Maybe better to look at a continuous 6 month average rather than high or low water marks?

Left to his own devices, every player hits a plateau, whether it's 1300 or 1900 or 2300. Books will help to raise the bar, but he will struggle to get much beyond that without professional coaching.

Originally posted by elassasino
hmm not much out there on this topic eh? It would seem a prime data set for some EdPsych type graduate student to investigate.
I'm betting theres a tight learning/experience curve up to ~ 1350, much beyond & i'm thinking you've got to start considering a coach or some serious readings ... tho im sure the local exceptions will dispute that! Anyone els ...[text shortened]... ?
A related phenomena is the typical undulation of our (newbies) ratings; almost a bio-rythem ?

You can look at my record and tell when life/work became stressful. When too much is going on, I play poorly and my rating suffers. When I get things back on track, I play better. 🙂

Originally posted by elassasino
hmm not much out there on this topic eh?
Anyone else wanna describe what they've experienced per 100 games ?

Per 100 games?

I'd say it would be easier to measure someone's performance after every 10 vodka and cokes,
you'd definitely see a trend there 🙂

... so i have a report of sorts, it doesnt address rate of improvement but is perhaps tangential ...

I sorted the membership of redhot by their ratings @ 250 intervals

< 1 K rating : 59.6 K
1-1.25 : 256.7 K
1.25-1.5 : 59.7 K
1.5- 1.75 : 11.3 K
1.75-2.0 : 2.9 K

The site has ~ 390.3 K users. 81% are rated 1250 or below 3.6% are above 1500

Originally posted by elassasino
... so i have a report of sorts, it doesnt address rate of improvement but is perhaps tangential ...

I sorted the membership of redhot by their ratings @ 250 intervals

< 1 K rating : 59.6 K
1-1.25 : 256.7 K
1.25-1.5 : 59.7 K
1.5- 1.75 : 11.3 K
1.75-2.0 : 2.9 K

The site has ~ 390.3 K users. 81% are rated 1250 or below 3.6% are above 1500

What percentage of that 390.3K is currently active?

Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
What percentage of that 390.3K is [b]currently active?[/b]

According to the player tables there are 11162 active players (Players who have moved in the last 100 days).

That's about 0.03%.

I bet most of the non active players never finished a game.

Originally posted by moonbus
Left to his own devices, every player hits a plateau, whether it's 1300 or 1900 or 2300. Books will help to raise the bar, but he will struggle to get much beyond that without professional coaching.

Chess clubs, and (with a willing skilled opponent) your local chess park tables, an utter mine of information tactics, methods and books you may never have heard of to get your local library to get in and read will help push things up.

Depends how dedicated to the game you are and natural logic skills, look through classic games, see where mistakes were made, or great moves pulled off.

My only real skill is the sacrifice, swapping points for position, not always possible, but the opportunity to use what could have been a castling move or just before you opponent has a good opportunity to castle are great times to put the "mad bishop" into play but make sure your set up to take advantage, also you can just play lower rankers less uppage but over time you will "SEEM" better, ranking wise at least.

haha this is a funny suggestion hee hee :

"also you can just play lower rankers less uppage but over time you will "SEEM" better, ranking wise at least."

& im not sure what difference currently active matters, by the time someone registers for this site, they're probably a goodly # of games played elsewhere. the pt. is this sites membership is undoubtedly well above a random sample of the public @ large that know the rules.

i find the osscilation (wave) in my own ratings very odd & note many others around my level have the same thing ... i guess i can take solace in the thought that this indicates my wins arent random ... but then neither are my loss strings :p saludos from arizona usa

Originally posted by elassasino
haha this is a funny suggestion hee hee :

"also you can just play lower rankers less uppage but over time you will "SEEM" better, ranking wise at least."

& im not sure what difference currently active matters, by the time someone registers for this site, they're probably a goodly # of games played elsewhere. the pt. is this sites membership is und ...[text shortened]... es my wins arent random ... but then neither are my loss strings :p saludos from arizona usa

The occasional draw or loss given up against lower rated players hurts a lot. Play too far down and you'll end up having to win 10 to make up for 1 loss.