No, I am MOST DEFINITELY overrated.  I am not complaining about my rating!  I am complaining about the number of games per time period one must play in order to not have each game result in a  30-50 point increase/decrease.

 Yes. I know. But, chess.com's requirement for how many games per given time period must be played in order to achieve a certain RD is what this thread is about.  Other sites that use the Glicko have a MUCH lower requirement for the number of games played recently to achieve a stable RD.  Chess.com's  calculation of RD is very differnt than that of, say, FICS.  Why is that?

Anyone?

I don't know why they do it that way but I also feel that the rating adjustment when I win/lose a game vs a player close to my own rating is really excessive. I think of chess.com mostly as a place to learn and share. I play most of my games at other sites for various reasons and one of those reasons is that the rating adjustment is not as great and I suppose that is due to the RD factor. Some of them also have a better chessboard interface. But it has seemed to me that chess.com's general policies favors blitz type play and players. They seem to have a disdainful attitude toward slow CC type players; for example, the tactics trainer does not provide ratings for untimed puzzle solving. I think that's rediculous. So I use a tactics trainer at another site.

 Work on tactics and then work on them some more and then do it again, and repeat as necessary!

That's a good question... hopefully a staff member will comment...

When you play more games, your rating gets more accurate.

 Yes.  But why does chess.com require so many games per time period in order to achieve a stable RD?

I was just wondering about the ratings earlier coincidently! I have a concern with how many points i lose/win against players!

Im playing a player rated 1886 and my change in rating is Rated - Win: +22  Loss: -42  Draw: -10

Im also playing a player rated 1543  and my change in rating is Rated - Win: +6  Loss: -48  Draw: -21.

How can the losing rating points be so similar? I find it disconcerning that they can be so similar when a lose to a 1500 is almost the same as someone almost 1900 who is close enough to my skill level.

 I agree.  I believe the reaosn this is the case is that on this website, the number of recent games played required to get a stable RD is too high.  I do not intend to ever again (I did have one periond where I just had way too many games going) have a lot of games going at one time and it seems that means I'm forever doomed to a high RD and therefore each win/loss for me will be 30-50 points.  This will probably be enough for me to eventually leave this site.  I hope enough people will complain about this and the powers that be will change the number of games requirement to get a low RD.

interesting conversation.

After 600 games in a little over a year, my current rating breakdown is:

2000+ (3 games) 51W 4L

1800 - 1999 (3 games) 43W 8L

1600 - 1799 (8 games) 37W 21L

below 1600 (1 game) 10W 44L

I don't know if I would like to receive much lower points. I would like to get at least 500 for beating a 2000+ player.

 Your current RD is 100.  Have you not been playing many games lately?  Or, have you been playing about the same number of games you always have and your RD is just not as low as it should be because of this website's caclulation method?

I don't play as many games as I used to. The first half of last year is when I played the most games (@20-25 games at a time and with a time per move of around 1 hour). I don't ever remember my RD being below 70 and 100 is around the highest I remember seeing.

From what I have read thus far, it seems to me that the RD factor is being used to penalize people who play slow or who don't play as many games at a time. I feel that is a bad policy. The consequence is that I lose more points here than at other sites. So why not just play at other sites? Those who are concerned about this are probably a small minority. So it is doubtful chess.com will do any about this since their policies should reflect the needs (or wants) of the many.

You will get a kick out of this.  I was rated 2691, drew two games in a row, and my rating went down to 2534.  Almost 160 points in two games, and I didn't even lose. 

That's what having a high rating and not playing many recent games will do to you in the Glicko system.

Regards, Zug

 This I will do.

 This is exactly my point.  I don't think drawing two games should cause a decrease such as this unless you drew against two 1300's or something.  I'm shocked there aren't more people concerned with the RD system here at chess.com.  However, if I'm truly in the minority, then I will just have to suck it up or play elsewhere.

I think you are in the minority not because you are fussy or overly care about rating etc, I think you are in the minority because most people wouldn't even think that they could get the rating system changed. For a lot of people, the maths is either too difficult or they cannot be bothered to try and understand it. I agree with you that the ratings jump too much, but I cannot come up with anything better because I do not have the time to study the formula.

That just really seems wrong. It doesn't seem as though that is a fair or accurate reflection of a person's playing ability. That's what ratings are supposed to indicate.

 I agree completely.  I think a slight adjustment to the RD caclulation method would lead to more accurate ratings.  I think a lot of people are suprised at how many points they win/lose each game, but they just don't say anything about it.  Of course, some people proabably only play here and therefore don't have any experiences with which to compare chess.com's rating system.