Reading comprehension failure. He was simply an example of a low rated player beating rank 1, thus proving anyone decent can beat anyone.

1 v 1 ladder: Not Ranked with a rating of 1947.

is me, I have three games at the moment that I feel confidently "ahead" in, which will raise that to ~2060ish. I'm nowhere near 2300 now, but I don't think aiming for it is setting my hopes too high.

If I wanted to stall to 2300, I could already pull it off IMO with a bit of luck, but I don't.

Edited 8/2/2016 07:10:12

What I think is funny is how during the "luck setting" phase, people got much higher ratings:

Latnox 2552
Piggy 2400s
Belzebu 2400s

Well I'm not Nauz. And also Semice, it was a boot win...

After reading both pages, I have to agree with Tbest.

Assuming old ladder settings, too much is dependent on luck - getting first pick, first order, getting the crucial 3v2, plus the rock-papers-scissors nature of picking approaches on a map . At a high rating, picks will be very good and knowledge of play will be near perfect, usually its the little bit of skill consistency and luck that makes the difference.

I guess that being at the top is also about being unpredictable too. Buns often does weird things most wouldnt expect him to do.

"1994 will be broken within ~48 hours.

Set to debut around 2070. And yes, that's with no stalling."

2075 exactly.

I have 3 losses, I'm not sure hitting 2300 with those 3 losses, even if I won my next 10 games in a row would be feasible, but I'll keep playing this account and try to raise current rating to at least 2200. Might try a fresh start at that point and give 2300 a real attempt. This time I didn't even expect to hit top 10 so am perfectly happy with the rank 7 I currently have.

Edited 8/4/2016 04:08:55

You should check what Beren just said.

Edited 8/4/2016 04:10:16

What Beren said is what Beren always says.

It's not particularly new or necessarily right though. Old games hold down ratings for a long time, it's hard to track improvement over time when you reach the point that wins vs. good opponents raise rating by 2-3, and wins vs. bad opponents (read: most opponents) don't raise your rating at all.

Know what raises buns rating frequently? Wins expiring.

The real problem IMO is the awful matchmaking code. The range of people you can be matched vs. is much too large. A smaller range would result in a much better ladder.

Firstly, the rise would be slower. You wouldn't be able to play a 1800 rated player after 3 games and then start playing 2,000's. You'd gradually play higher and higher ratings if you continued winning. Secondly, when you are at the top of the ladder you wouldn't be getting matchups that are lose-lose in nature. Win, get mildly punished, lose, get totally destroyed.

If you play 50 games, and wind up 2100, and then join with a different account and are 2300+ when it hits the 50 game marker I don't feel that you got an undeservedly high rating by doing so, you got the rating your current play dictates rather than a rating influenced by how well you played months beforehand.

Edited 8/4/2016 05:02:33

Well, everybody knows that 1v1 ladder rating system sucks. But many people play under that condition (look at HBB), so that's the only way to play it.

I also do not feel that 2150+ is anywhere near as flawless as TBest makes it out to be. I am 19-3 with over 2100 rating right now, and of those 19 wins, only 1 is what I'd consider an error-free game. Even then people would likely make valid arguments that there were better picks than mine - and they'd probably be right.

If I could remove even just the "large" errors from my gameplay completely I think I'd be able to crack 2600.

Latnox went over 2550, if you think his games were error-free you're grossly mistaken.

And yes, this is hypothetical, I am not claiming I will ever eliminate all major errors or hit 2500.

Edited 8/4/2016 09:51:03

My advice is, care more about how to play better, not how to get a better rating. There have already been dozens of threads with people concerned with their ratings, only very few where people are concerned with how they play.

As far as I'm concerned, "getting a better rating" is about "not losing". I suppose the matchmaking flaws making obtaining a high rating more complicated than "Just Win every game" though. If rating was truly end all be all, I could have 2370 rating right now (just stall the 3 games I already lost and that is what 2111 becomes, 3 losses is less than 5, so it's literally that easy). Removing errors from my play is definitely my actual goal, especially at picks.

Also unlike some others, I am not afraid of mathematical approaches to winning.

+1 sze

sze said it all

I disagree. Not everything and everyone can be at the same level even if they "try hard enough".

Play chess all your life and everytime of the day, you're not guaranteed to become #1 or even #1000 for what matters. Lots of it has to do with things we can't change such as genetics.

I believe three big factors come in when you are willing to become a pro in any category:

1) Training and effort
2) Ability to learn and adapt
3) Mental preparation and consistency

Play all you want, but with a bad ability to learn complex moves and to adapt to situations, and it'd be useless to progress to a point you can win high level games.

Be emotionally unstable and you can be very smart, and try very hard but you will never reach the top either.

Be smart and emotionally preparated but never train or put effort and you won't be #1 either.


You can ofc learn some of these and become good at the game, but if you don't master each, you can't consistently beat the best and eventually become one.

My problem isn't lack of confidence. Games where I feel I am the underdog and need to try hard to win, I do fine in.

It's the games I expect to win and halfass. Those bite me in the ass way too often.

EDIT: Not sure why he changed his post, he suggested putting a sticker on your computer screen where opponents names show so you play vs. all people the same and not feel intimidated by good opponents.

Edited 8/5/2016 01:39:15

+1 great posts here on how to improve.

Based on ladder and forum activity, it's clear many of us have a strong desire to achieve a high ladder rank. The question of "how" is addressed frequently.

*Why* do some of us have such a strong drive to achieve high ranks?

Note: "Because I must win, win, win!" doesn't fully satisfy the question; it only signals a person has the condition:)

Paying attention to this question is somewhat of a red pill vs blue pill proposition.

Edited 8/7/2016 00:12:30

You must ween ween ween! You're gonna ween so much, that you're going to get tired of weening.

White people don't know whats it's like to be at the bottom of the ladder!