Rating Inflation in chess.com?

Hi. I've been playing chess on chess.com for almost a decade now and my blitz rating have been about a modest 1600 all the time. Despite of all the time I've invested studying chess, this rating never increased. My ELO by the way is around 1900 in the real world, so I have not been a particularly good blitz player.

However, in the last 2-3 months, my rating in chess.com has started to increase rapidly. Now I have reached a solid 1850+ blitz rating. At first, I was very happy and I thought that the last studies I did, paid off really well. Then I became a little skeptical. Because I think I recently saw someone who never played a game before but had a rating of 1800. It seems that the new people start with 1800 points now. I think the starting rating was much much lower in the past, which explains why I am gaining rating points in the last months.

Did you guys also experienced a similar rapid increase in your rating points recently, or did I actually improved a lot at the last months?

There may be a little inflation because they are letting some people start at 1800. However I think that you are on a good streak. You have had your rating get close to 1800 several times over the years.

Yes, I think there's inflation lately.  I am up about 200 points in blitz over the last couple months.  I would love to believe it's improvement, but i can't.

You have been over 1400 several times as far back as 2012. You are up another 100 points this time. I don't think you can conclude it is owed to inflation.

I would love this to be true (since it would mean I'm actually improving).  But I haven't actually been over 1400 (blitz) prior to this time (1381 was highest).  And that was very early, when ratings move wildly from just one win.  It's more right to say I have been above 1350 before.  I don't know...it feels like there is some inflation.  Could be there is not.

Sorry for double post...deleted one.

Certainly! I can't imagine how I would ever be rated 2100 otherwise...

- - - - - - - - - 

By the way - your specific argument for rating inflation isn't strong, because - 

1) just as there are new players who start with a self-chosen 1800, there are others who choose 1000 or 800 - the difference is that now players can choose how they start, but the range is 800 - 1800, so one can argue for deflation just as easily as they argue for inflation. 

2) After the FIRST game of a new player, his rating changes WILDLY. Rating changes of new players are very very wild - as the system is still trying to figure out their rating. Only later it stabilizes. So if someone rates himself 1800 but is actually worth 1000 - he will be rated 1800 for his first game only. Then probably around 1450, then around 1250 - and after some four games he will be close to his real level. 

- - - - - - - 

I hope this makes things a bit clearer. 

There must be inflation, definitely. I have played against so many 2000+ players who play very unsound chess: They have neither positional understanding, nor they have the vision or the tactical ability to exploit my small mistakes. I remember that few years ago I played someone 2000+ 24 games. The result was 1,5-22,5 at the end. Most of the time I was outplayed, sometimes I got a slightly better position, but I couldn't convert because of some inaccuracies which a 2000+ player could take advantage of. But now, 2000 seems pretty mediocre to me. 

 But then, look at you! You were in the lower 1600s throughout most of 2013 and 2014... that must have a bearing on things. 

When you're rated that low, 2000 players look like all-knowing monsters :-)

Solskytz, what you say about the eventual stabilisation of the rating of a player by 4 games is true (the case of the 1000 pretending to be 1800). But, the problems lies here in, for the other 1800 players who get paired up with the fellow get free rating points, have enough of these overrated players in the system and the whole rating scale gets inflated. What I have experienced playing against the so called 1600-1700s is that they blunder too often, much more than I would have expected from a 1600-1700 a few year back.