This is probably better put in the general Variants club, given it's a suggestion relating to the server as a whole
Proposed change in ratings and leaderboards
Sort:
Jul 25, 2025
0
#3
wrote:
This is probably better put in the general Variants club, given it's a suggestion relating to the server as a whole
i agree
Jul 26, 2025
0
#4
wrote:
I believe it would be an improvement in Chess.com for all ratings that have a Glicko RD over 100 (or whichever value is used for determining provisional ratings) to be marked with a (?), not just the ratings that have been determined by a low number of games, and for ratings with a (?) to be excluded from the leaderboards. That way, ratings that can not accurately represent or determine a player's actual skill level (for example, a 3000 rating of a player that solely accumulates rating by playing opponents under 1500) are indicated clearly, and can be differentiated from the ratings that can accurately determine a player's skill level.
While some may argue that a player with an extremely high skill level and rating, when playing against an opponent, will be guaranteed to result in a Glicko RD increase, potentially to above the proposed threshold, such a result is almost certainly preventable with the use of the Rating Range feature and setting the lower bound to -300, -200, -100, or even -50, while playing rated.
While the application of a rating range to prevent Glicko RD increase in one's variant seeks may result in longer wait times, for those that desire to play variants without a long wait, there exists another option: the Casual option combined with a negative infinity Rating Range lower bound can prevent the Glicko RD increase while keeping wait times within a reasonable range.
(Edit: Posted in Variants. This thread can now be locked if desired.)
That font is so huge an 10000 year old could probably read that
I'd bet a lot of money that there are no 10000-year-old people that are able to read that
I have a new game: this custom position, 2 zombies, game for points. Try it, it is great! https://www.chess.com/variants/custom
Jul 30, 2025
0
#9
wrote:
I have a new game: this custom position, 2 zombies, game for points. Try it, it is great! https://www.chess.com/variants/custom
bruh it leads me to chess.com custom but doesnt show ur position
I believe it would be an improvement in Chess.com for all ratings that have a Glicko RD over 100 (or whichever value is used for determining provisional ratings) to be marked with a (?), not just the ratings that have been determined by a low number of games, and for ratings with a (?) to be excluded from the leaderboards. That way, ratings that can not accurately represent or determine a player's actual skill level (for example, a 3000 rating of a player that solely accumulates rating by playing opponents under 1500) are indicated clearly, and can be differentiated from the ratings that can accurately determine a player's skill level.
While some may argue that a player with an extremely high skill level and rating, when playing against an opponent, will be guaranteed to result in a Glicko RD increase, potentially to above the proposed threshold, such a result is almost certainly preventable with the use of the Rating Range feature and setting the lower bound to -300, -200, -100, or even -50, while playing rated.
While the application of a rating range to prevent Glicko RD increase in one's variant seeks may result in longer wait times, for those that desire to play variants without a long wait, there exists another option: the Casual option combined with a negative infinity Rating Range lower bound can prevent the Glicko RD increase while keeping wait times within a reasonable range.
(Edit: Posted in Variants. This thread can now be locked if desired.)