Is your rating accurate ( too low? too high? )

[Joaz Banbeck]

Is your rating reflective of your true strength? ( I'm not asking for a comparison of rating systems here. Please assume that most of the other player's ratings on that rating system are accurate. I only want to know if you think that yours is yours accurate. )

[Joaz Banbeck]

Please read this after you have voted:

There is a book on inuition and perception called 'The Invisible Gorilla', which is currently in the top 1000 books on Amazon. Among other interesting things, it refers to a poll of chess players in which they were asked if their ratings were accurate. 21% said they were; 4% said that their rating was too high, and 75% belived that their rating was too low.
Three out of every four players belived that their true strength was more than their rating.

The players were not unfamiliar with the game. They had an average experience of 20 years. So they knew what strenght was.
Nor were they talking about a delay in games being reported, which can give a rapidly improving player an artificially low rating. A year later the vast majority of players were still at or close to their same rating.

[GoCat]

A couple comments:

First, I didn't vote because I think the choices are too narrow. 1/2 stone increments? Heck, the best I can say about my rating is that it's probably within a couple stones. When asked, what's my strength, my reply is typically, "Oh, 5 or 6 Kyu, give or take a couple."

Also, a response to the hidden comment in the OP:

This reminds me of a study that was in the news recently. It rated how well our kids are learning across various countries. (I think it was mostly science and math scores, but I don't recall exactly.) Anyways... the U.S. students weren't doing too well compared to many other developed countries. However, they rated much higher in their self-confidence: they *think* they are doing better than they are.

So, I don't know about that chess study, but I wonder if it was all Americans!

[Bill Spight]

Please read this after you have voted:

Three out of every four players belived that their true strength was more than their rating.

As Terence Reese said, "A man who plays up to himself is hard to beat." Most players do not play up to themselves, and so their ratings do not reflect their true strength.

When Billie Jean King was commentating tennis tournaments, she used to talk about a player "raising the level of her game" during a match. For serious players this is an important concept. I used to know a dan player who, IMO, did not have the skills of a dan player. But he won a lot of games because he simply refused to lose.

[Bill Spight]

Please read this after you have voted:

Three out of every four players belived that their true strength was more than their rating.

This is in line with research that indicates that people generally think that they are more skilled than they actually are. However, as is often the case, other research indicates that the framing of the question can make a difference. For instance, what if players were asked how many games they thought they would win if they played 100 games against players with their same rating? Although that appears to be an equivalent question, it would not be surprising if the average was very close to 50.

[Solomon]

No one's going to say their rating is too high because of ego. Well, except for ketchup maybe.

[FlameBlade]

Seems like someone just voted for "too high."

[SoDesuNe]

I voted 'accurate' because while it seems under certain circumstances that I'm better than 4k, I on the other hand lost my third game in a row today, which demoted me temporarily to 5k.

Maybe it's one out of the many phases in which you're knowledge has to anchor on a deeper level.

Yeah, this doesn't strike me as surprising ^^ Funny thing is, I always say about my Go strength that it is something around my currently rank.

To Bill Spight:
Out of 100 games, I'd say I would win about 53%. At least this is what KGS Analytics tells me ; )



post scriptum: Oops, I just see. I didn't even play 100 ranked games on KGS until now :O This is approximately 5 games a month since registering...

[tj86430]

As Terence Reese said

In this day and age it is most refreshing to see someone quote Terence Reese. I wonder how many here know who he is (without googling)

[mohsart]

What rating? My KGS rating, my national rating, my GoR, my DGS rating...

[robinz]

As Terence Reese said

In this day and age it is most refreshing to see someone quote Terence Reese. I wonder how many here know who he is (without googling)

I'm a keen bridge player (only recently taken up go), so of course I know who Terence Reese is

[freegame]

according to KGS analytics I have 12 wins and 6 losses this month with my rated account
I voted for 1/2 stone to low

[Dusk Eagle]

I normally think my rating is accurate, but right now I voted for "0.5 stones too low" because I have not been playing much on KGS specifically, but my last few times playing on KGS I have won, and I feel I have improved a lot since my last time playing on KGS (which I treat as my "official" rating). Even back when I did play those last few games, I felt like I was getting pretty close to 1 dan, and I have still been playing Go in real life - just not on KGS. Once I get a few more games in on there, I think it will be accurate again.

[DrStraw]

As Terence Reese said

In this day and age it is most refreshing to see someone quote Terence Reese. I wonder how many here know who he is (without googling)

I have many books by him on my bookshelf. I don't think I have read any of them for over 30 years.

[DrStraw]

I am an amateur so any estimation of my rating is not likely to be within two stone either way of my true strength which, of course, varies by as much as two or three stones depending on my mood.