I have read some forum topics about rating on this site, and I was wondering whether or not it would be a good idea to let new players start at 1500 instead of 1200. I know a site where you start at 1500, unless you can provide a real rating, FIDE or correspondence chess or something.

 

If the new player is stronger than 1500, the opponent's rating doesn't drop so dramatically if he wins. Plus the new player's rating doesn't go up that dramatically either.

If the new player loses, his rating will drop of course more than if he starts at 1200, but his opponent's rating won't be affected as much.

 

I think this might stabilise ratings a bit more, especially as new players register every day. Players will arrive at an "appropriate" rating more gradually. If you are a 1200 player, you'll get there. If you are a 2000 player, you'll get there too, but without upsetting so many other players' ratings rather drastically.

 

I'd be interested to hear other people's opinions on this.

I don't know....
I'd like to see something more like a USCF provisional rating type system...
losing to person new to chess.com who's way better than me but yet is 1200 in rating bothers me.

I think on average, most players who play their first game on the site play lower than the 1200 rating so I believe 1200 is a better starting rating than 1500.

are you strong or weak player,the time will show.

1200 is a good start.

On another site I started at 1400 but now my rating on that site is very similar to my rating here.  So at least in my case the 1200 starting rating works. 

yeah. this will all average out. plus, there are many many new players on chess.com, so the average is more realistically 1200. :) i think most people have found their ratings normalized quickly to their real rating!

the rating changes drastically because you won/lost games. 1500 is too high for a beginner. 1200 i think is just right and when you win your first game it increase up to 1400 because its your ability. its just like youre under provision for the meantime. when you stabilized youre rating after 5 games rating are not drastically changed.(unless youve had a game for much weaker or stronger player)

If you start at 1500 the rating of the new players will also normalise, but the rating of the "stabilised" players won't be affected so much when that new player actually isn't 1500 but 1900. I'm thinking more of the people who have been playing here for a while already, and whose rating doesn't really normalise because they play new players a lot.

I would prefer to start at 3000 and work my way down...

Sprite wrote:

I don't know....
I'd like to see something more like a USCF provisional rating type system...
losing to person new to chess.com who's way better than me but yet is 1200 in rating bothers me.

---

Me too, and that's why I'm no more matching  someone with a 1200 rating.

Does it really matter? You may win, loose or draw the game. The ratings will go up and down. Enjoy the games!! Enjoy them even if you play only a few at a time.

chessmates wrote: Does it really matter? You may win, loose or draw the game. The ratings will go up and down. Enjoy the games!! Enjoy them even if you play only a few at a time.

---

 i agree wholeheartedly with the above. the 1200 start point is mathematically the median point(between 0 and 2400)and seems to me to be working out allright. Shakespeare had it right-much ado about nothing!

It took me three days to win three games and reach 1612 from 1200. Starting higher will serve mostly to inflate the ratings of weak players.

I think it would be more intimidating to weaker players (e.g. myself) if the rating was higher. If someone is good, they'll get to a higher rating fast enough.

1500 or 1200 doesn't matter because its temporary.your real rating will come up with succeeding games.