Players fiddling the Elo rating
Sort:
3 days ago
0
#3
warsoaps wrote:
There's clearly players that are somehow fiddling the Elo system to get ridiculously high ratings. I don't know how they are doing it, but the top leaderboards make no sense. It's full of people nobody has heard of at the top, some of which have played only a handful of games over a year. For example, Magnus is merely a couple dozen points ahead of GutovAndrey, someone who as far as i'm aware has only been in amateur tournaments. I'm also under the impression there's a number of fake titled players as well, how they've gotten that i have no idea.
The site has a verification process for titled players.
Why do you even bother about that?
chess.com doesn't use the Elo system, as many believe, but the Glicko system, which takes into account the number of games you've played. That's what makes it possible for players to have well over 3000 rating, while OTB nobody has ever gotten that high. Ratings in general are also supposed to only be estimates of your strength, which can fluctuate depending on how you do. Are these leaderboards bullet? It's incredibly easy to inflate your bullet rating very quickly, by just moving so fast that your opponents can't keep up. GothamChess made a video about it, I think.
There's clearly players that are somehow fiddling the Elo system to get ridiculously high ratings. I don't know how they are doing it, but the top leaderboards make no sense. It's full of people nobody has heard of at the top, some of which have played only a handful of games over a year. For example, Magnus is merely a couple dozen points ahead of GutovAndrey, someone who as far as i'm aware has only been in amateur tournaments. I'm also under the impression there's a number of fake titled players as well, how they've gotten that i have no idea.