Chess ratings NEW members

I'm wondering about this too... most players seem to start out at 1200 (including me), but a couple start at 800 and a couple at 1800. Interestingly I haven't seen other values such as 1000, 1400, or 1600.

This is very odd. Someone at Chess.com getting paid off?  lol

I've been on this site since 2009. I just now begun to see this trend. The only thing that I can surmise is that perhaps using tactics trainer and or chess mentor before playing an actual game affects these values.

Also, why is it that when someone has never played games of one type (such as bullet), any of three things can be displayed on his/her profile:

1. The start value of 1200 (or 800 or 1800) is displayed, like in zacharymstivers's case.

2. "Unrated" is displayed, like with my Chess960 rating.

3. The category simply isn't displayed at all, like with my standard rating.

It's all a mystery to me...

There is some odd programming glitch going on where players have impossible ratings with no games played. I have been on this site for over six years and a possible solution is "resets". I remember 5 or 4 years ago all live games were erased, hence the "reset". Maybe there is a coding algorithm which resets either rating or games. I too have seen a few weird ratings (eg. Tactics Trainer rating of 3200) and I pretty much just ignore them as being a break in the code of chess.com, nothing to worry about. 

Edit: I have played 8,000 games of live/online, but only about 1/3 are available in the databses. 

KellyTactics, Bullet, Blitz and Standard etc. except 960. Are not displayed unless a members plays at least one of those games.

I think I remember reading that they've made a change so that new member can indicate their skill level and it chooses their starting rating based on that. It doesn't really matter, it just takes a few games and the rating will end up more or less where it belongs.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/suggestions/why-do-some-member-start-with-a-different-initial-rating

See comment #5.

Theron, you beat me to it :)

Just wait, soon I'll be beating you on the Daily Puzzle.

That's because I can't compete for real... 

New members being able to 'declare ' their own rating seems odd to me.Why any need to change the old system which worked perfectly well.

In any case if new members do play any games that are rated they will eventually find their true level.

The odd thing is people who join, comment in groups etc, and never play any chess. I can think of at least a couple like that who have never played even  one game here.

Of course nothing wrong with the social side either!

I suppose it doesn't make much difference in blitz or bullet since the ratings will find their "true value" quickly but in correspondece chess where games take months it's different. It used to be the case that when an experienced otb player joins he will for a long time face mostly much weaker opponents which can be quite frustrating for all parties involved.

Good point! +1

I take Shakaalis point there, but if a strong player joins , and faces weaker players he will soon rise in ratings anyway. 

From what Ive seen in team matches for example the lower rated players games are almost always the first to finish pretty quickly, as they tend to move very quickly.

Id also add that ( except in the case of anyone titled) I think it only fair that players ' earn' their rating here, if it takes a little while so be it.

Looks like Im on a loser anyway with this!

I have thought about people who close there accounts and reopen them. To change there rating as they start fresh again with new account and ratings. And have seen some get there old account ratings back on their new account. Not sure what this means or why it happens? And I have played  friends with a lot of games with high ratings and the then you see them losing all their games to make there rating go down. I am not sure why this happens?

Fair point of view. I see the logic in your concept. I guess there are pros and cons to each side.