Some people are more equal than others?
WHY?
Sort:
I'm sure the staff here bumped her up. For titled players, I don't think it's a big deal either. She is obviously going to get there anyway (according to the FIDE website, her rating is 2383) and this way she doesn't have to kill others ratings on her way up.
I know I'm sometimes weary of playing a 1200 rated player. You can lose like a hundred points if they know their stuff. It's not that some people are more equal than others. Ratings are a measure of skill, and she's obviously already proven she's got that. If somehow she didn't, then she'd fall back down again.
Oh, and if she ever reads this, hi Rusudan! 
Welcome! hehe
While I am all for allowing titled players to start at well above 1200 (which is ridiculous anyway) I am a bit disturbed that some titled players do indeed start at 1200, and some get their ratings "adjusted". This doesnt seem fair to me. No titled player should have to start at 1200 imo, but I did and I doubt I am the only one that did.
Reb wrote: While I am all for allowing titled players to start at well above 1200 (which is ridiculous anyway) I am a bit disturbed that some titled players do indeed start at 1200, and some get their ratings "adjusted". This doesnt seem fair to me. No titled player should have to start at 1200 imo, but I did and I doubt I am the only one that did.
Is not fair for no one
How about taking a cue from Yahoo! Chess and providing "provisional ratings" to new players. There, playing a provisionally rated player has a negligible effect on your rating.
I agree, either have them start at a higher level right off the bat or have them go through the same hoops as us plebs.
Apr 25, 2008
0
#9
we ALWAYS adjust ratings if we are made aware of a titled player. Reb, if you were not adjusted immediately it was because we didn't know your status at the beginning.
erik wrote: we ALWAYS adjust ratings if we are made aware of a titled player. Reb, if you were not adjusted immediately it was because we didn't know your status at the beginning.
Ok Erik, fair enough . 
Apr 25, 2008
0
#11
BrandX wrote:
my first game:
Attack-Defense(1612) BrandX(1200) 0-1
...new Rating for me (1682)
MikeD4134 (1615) RusudanGoletiani (1200 ) 0-1
....new Rating for RusudanGoletiani (2224)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3 more rating points from the opponent makes a big difference, doesn't it?
I cant believe that
my first game:
Attack-Defense(1612) BrandX(1200) 0-1
...new Rating for me (1682)
MikeD4134 (1615) RusudanGoletiani (1200 ) 0-1
....new Rating for RusudanGoletiani (2224)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!