Chess.com Proposal: How to Handle Growing Bullet Ratings

#2 sounds best to me.

So far, only Paul and I have tried to choose options other than the 3 given by Erik.

If this thread is intended for survey, the respondence is too small to be valid.

If this thread is intended to seek opinion, it is not right to "force" respondence to choose the 3 options, especially the details of these options have never been clear. There are a lot of issues here. More complicated than the most complicated.

Reading from Erik's post, where he started with quick "introduction" to human strange behaviour (treating rating like money), then followed with how "valid" his understanding of the statistics, I can tell that:

When he started the system, he wanted a perfect rating system. Statistically perfect rating system. What is that? A rating that accurately predicts one's rating relatively to others in the same pool. You MAY want to say that chessdotcom rating system is more accurate than FIDE rating system. If so (actually it is not, the detailed implementation is different), has this solve the problem?

Apparently, many have said that engineers make a lousy management. From marketing perspective, you can see that a lot of consumers want their chessdotcom rating comparable with FIDE rating, even without slight understanding what a rating is! Isn't that ironical?

You can "change" the system from minor change (as changing K-factor or restarting the RD) to major change (from Glicko to ELO with completely different tablebase), all with implications.

How can we make chessdotcom rating "comparable" to FIDE, which has different pool of players?? By using own formula! But of course that's not a good idea. (I don't know which "new formula" Erik was talking about)

Imo, there is nothing wrong with the bullet rating (FIDE doesn't have bullet rating AFAIK). I can see many players only want to play with higher rated players, only want playing with white pieces. If overly high rating is what they want, give them what they want! They are the customers.

I myself don't care with my numbers. But I want a clear way to track "progress". It can sufficiently be done for example by providing "top 9000 players" so that I can see (by printscreen) that today I'm rank X in chessdotcom, Y points below LordNazgul.

I think my slow chess skill is a lot better than my quick chess skill. But my chessdotcom standard is lower than my blitz, and my blitz is lower than my bullet. But it is not because the rating system is not accurate!

I intended to "achieve" 1700 at bullet games and work out through the higher time control. My peak at bullet is 1752. My average opponent's rating is 1672. I think it is normal to have opponent's average rating lower so I decided that I'm done with bullet.

I don't want to hurry playing longer games. What I want is 3/1 or 5/1 because I want to think seriously but don't want to lose on time. But it is difficult (slower) to find opponent with 3/1 or 5/1 so I have to play 3/0 or 5/0.

Choosing white or choosing the rating of your opponent doesn't cause a whole system to inflate.  I believe bullet ratings were as much as 300-400 points lower across the board around a year ago... what made them inflate I have no idea (tons of new beginners?)

So IMO something like a new formula or a basic reset of the ratings doesn't seem like a bad idea.  Hard to use ratings as a measuring stick for improvement when they're not stable, and although the customers may not be vocal about that aspect of ratings I think it's something they expect.

I quitted playing chess about a year and just starting again (may be will quit again soon). I didn't see the 300-400 last year. But you cannot generate such numbers easily because rate of inflation is different at different level.

The original Elo formula (which is rarely used) is an inverse exponential, where it is very difficult to improve your rating once you are at the top. With modern formula, your rating will grow wild once you are at the top. What is the definition of being at the top? When you are a lot stronger than the average of your opponents. (Note Paul's comment regarding segmentation so you cannot play opponents too strong or too weak)

The wider spread of level of seriousness also counts. Nobody is playing in FIDE rated tournaments just for fun. All players have almost similar level of seriousness, which is very high. Here, free online games...
some players are too serious that they setup real board, open MCO, or even use software, while others are not serious enough that they will let themselves lost on time (in turn based games).

I don't understand the premise of the OP. Bullet is overrated in what sense? What are you comparing it to? Bullet chess is NOT USCF or FIDE standard time control chess, so what is the big deal with people having higher ratings in bullet? A player's bullet chess rating on here is relative to other bullet chess players on here, it doesn't have to have any validity or correllation beyond that. There is moreover no bullet rating for FIDE or USCF anyway.

"Inflated" bullet ratings are common on any site. On ICC for instance I know some 2400/2500 IMs who are 3000+ rated at bullet. Based on speed of calculation, candidate move selection and intuition, they ARE that good... at BULLET. The idea proposed suggests that they should not be "allowed" to be that high - they should be in the 2400 range. I don't understand this at all. Using a similar thought process, what if someone sucked at bullet but was excellent at standard time control chess - should we likewise boost their bullet rating to match their standard?! Seems absurd - people have different strengths!

I also like how many users who advocate drastic cuts and formula resets suck at bullet. Jealous much? :)

Yeah... um... isn't that what ratings are meant to be about?! A relative measure of strength... so I am not sure how what you are saying can be true... unless people just think they are good at it, and their ratings show otherwise, or other delusional ideas. :)

In other words... they're overrated.

If that is the case, then I FULLY agree with you - of course for the ratings to make sense, the rating system cannot be gamed in this way. But this should be easy enough to counter, and I am sure chess.com must factor in rating difference to prevent crazy rating boosting. (i.e. so that if someone is signficantly below you, simply do not win any more rating points by beating them). So, yeah, if its a case of some people taking advantage of a rating loophole, fix that - no need to force everyone to have the same rating range across all ratings... makes no sense at all.

Anyone who has somehow gamed the system should be individually corrected or even banned - but no need to punish the rest of us.

My bullet and blitz are pretty close - yours look close across the board too - should we automatically have 200 removed from bullet?

If we change any formulae, I think members would love to have complete information on what the new formulae/parameters look like.

Still more anti-bullet-bias. (Bulletphobia?!) What makes bullet so special that it needs to be singled out in this way? A game magically becomes a different form of chess after 2:59? It is all just chess with time constraints. I find correspondence chess largely "abnormal" chess (use of legal and illegal assistance for a start, and thinking for days about a move seems absurd), but I am not going to single this out as not a form of chess. They are ALL forms of chess. Just ignore the ones you don't want to play. Simple.

on some sites like FICS and ICC bullets are deflated for <2000 players and inflated for >2000 players.

Hahahahahaha

With 1 minute time, connection speed is very important. You can win on time by just shuffeling pieces. Even if the speed is equal for you and your opponent, you can move fast and when your opponent took a long time to think and you are ahead a few seconds, you can set up a fortress and shuffle your pieces back and forth without clear "chess-related plan and strategy".

I play bullet because there is something in it that I can learn to improve my overall chess skill. If I took advantage with abnormal winning strategy, that's because I need the rating so I can play better/stronger player more easily.

If you go into your online settings page, you can un-check 'auto claim win on time'.

Is that for live chess, or only from correspondence (online) chess?

turn based correspondance.

You can turn off claiming wins on time in your settings.

Bullet is awesome. I love premove.

Don't mix up bullet with correspondence chess. This thread is about bullet. This time out thing may confuses some readers.

I've heard about this, but my computer is just so slow I haven't been able to get many of the, "free points".