I have read about the fact that this site uses the Glicko system to evaluate the rating of a person. This is great, in my opinion, as this system is far superior than the ELO one. However, I have a simple suggestion to make.

Basically, if a player's RD (rating deviation) is very high, say more than 100, or than some other arbitrary value (depending on the internal constants of the rating system), that player's rating is way too uncertain to be of any meaning. Hence, I would suggest that such players' rating be displayed as Provisional.

This also works for players that leave for a long time. For such players, the Glicko system would increase their RD little by little. If a player leaves for too long, his or her rating would again be too uncertain to be meaningful, and hence it should be displayed as provisional. When he or she comes back, that player would need to play a few games in order for his or her rating to become meaningful again, and hence for his or her rating to be displayed again.

I think this would be fairer for everyone, as clearly a player having a rating of 1800 and an RD of 50 has a much more meaningful rating than another player having a rating of 1800 and an RD of 200.

I haven't played a rated game in many months and my Live Chess RDs are way up there (322/258/223). Clearly, my next rated game will result in a big adjustment. That's how it works, as you have clearly pointed out. But I believe that chess.com uses a number more like 350 to indicate fully provisional. I personally do not believe that a label needs to be put on a rating other than the RD itself. However, therein lies part of the issue to which you may be speaking: when you get a match with someone, you don't know what that person's RDs are; and, even if you look at that player's ratings table, you still don't get to see what that person's RDs are. I'd like to see RDs show up in both those situations. Then, you'd have a clear idea of what might be at stake.

Now, to make an alternative point, most folk may only be confused seeing those RDs come up. So, a different possibility for match occasions would be to see the potential loss or gain of ratings points. That, most anyone could understand.

Still, the features here are great, in my view. And the overall site is the best in my view.

My original point is that, in many cases, when the RD is large, the player's rating does not reflect his or her chess skills at all. For example, when I started playing here, my rating shot to over 1600 before settling down to a (more accurate, in my view) rating of 1350. If my rating were provisional during that time, this would have been better, both for my opponents and for myself.

Then, later on, if I happen to stop playing for a long time, my rating should go back to provisional since that is my true reflection of my rating.