When that new option was first put into effect when v3 was in beta testing, the vast majority of players were chosing the lower ratings. It isn't a big deal.
With the amount of players that join a site as popular as this, a vast majority still leaves a pretty sizable minority that can have significant impacts on other areas of the site. With all due respect, simply calling it "not a big deal" demonstrates ignorance of how this actually impacts players on the site.
..With all due respect, simply calling it "not a big deal" demonstrates ignorance of how this actually impacts players on the site.
Agreed
For those of you who are arguing that it's not a big deal, your argument seems to take the form "the inaccuracy, and the problems caused by the inaccuracy, will sort themselves out." But if their is an easy fix, why allow the inaccuracy?
Mark Glickman, inventor of the Glicko rating system, anticipated and settled this issue a long time ago, if Chess.com would just follow it. Unrated players get a 750 rating up to a 1350 rating, if I recall, as an initial provisional rating, the higher rating only possible for adults. Alternatively, if you already have an established rating elsewhere (USCF, FIDE, etc.), you can start with that rating. This solves all problems! Strong players can join Chess.com for the first time with a reasonably correct rating, while everyone else is presumed to be a beginner until proven otherwise. Provisional ratings remain in effect for the first 25 games, and the ratings are clearly marked as provisional.
Mike drop.
When that new option was first put into effect when v3 was in beta testing, the vast majority of players were chosing the lower ratings. It isn't a big deal.
With the amount of players that join a site as popular as this, a vast majority still leaves a pretty sizable minority that can have significant impacts on other areas of the site. With all due respect, simply calling it "not a big deal" demonstrates ignorance of how this actually impacts players on the site.
What percentage of new players do this? You're calling a person ignorant on the basis of your opinion. You need to provide data that define the extent of the problem. Does the number of over-rated players amount to 1%, 10%, 50%, etc. of the players rated over 2000? Also, how long do they remain rated above 2000? There are a lot of questions that need answering before you can categorically say that it is a major problem.
I think the point is that this problem has an outsize effect on team matches, and probably also tournaments
It's not how many people enter the pool, but the number that are in the pool. Again, how long do they stay in the pool?
When that new option was first put into effect when v3 was in beta testing, the vast majority of players were chosing the lower ratings. It isn't a big deal.
With the amount of players that join a site as popular as this, a vast majority still leaves a pretty sizable minority that can have significant impacts on other areas of the site. With all due respect, simply calling it "not a big deal" demonstrates ignorance of how this actually impacts players on the site.
What percentage of new players do this? You're calling a person ignorant on the basis of your opinion. You need to provide data that define the extent of the problem. Does the number of over-rated players amount to 1%, 10%, 50%, etc. of the players rated over 2000? Also, how long do they remain rated above 2000? There are a lot of questions that need answering before you can categorically say that it is a major problem.
I cannot say the exact percentage. But, over 92,000 players joined chess.com in the last 24 hours. 1% of that is still at least 920 new inaccurately-rated 2000 players in the last 24 hours, which is a significant number. The percentage would have to be very low in order for it to be a non-issue.
The question is how many over-rated players are in the Daily pool. If you look at the distribution of active players, very few are in the Daily pool (currently around 300,000 and relatively steady), so very few of the 92,000 new players per day play Daily chess (otherwise, the number would be rapidly increasing).
Most players don’t try to inflate their ratings by using chess engines and cheating. But because some do, Chess.com actively hunts them, asks us to Be vigilant and report them, and closes their accounts when they find them. Why? Because it is unfair to others who earn their ratings honorably, and it undermines and cheapens the whole rating system. Most don’t cheat, but the unfairness and gall of those who do sure cause it to be treated as a major problem.
Now an inflated rating of 2000 can be had by simply opening a new account and clicking your mouse. You don’t even have to cheat your way up through the pesky 1800S and 1900s. Play a few others with bogus 2000 ratings , as I’ve already seen done, and you can be a master. Not only is it unfair to others and a mockery of the rating system, but the whole issue is easily remedied with a simple 1200 or 1400 cap.
There are about 4 million active Live players. If I've integrated the distribution curves correctly, about 100,000 are rated above 2000 (most are Blitz players). Since we're talking Live, how long do you think that a weak player can remain above 2000. I used Daily as an example because players are more likely to remain over-rated when the games take a few days, or months, rather than several minutes.
WHY DOESN'T CHESS.COM USE THE USCF RATING SYSTEM OR FIDE RATING SYSTEM? IT HAS GOT TO BE BETTER THAN HANDING OUT FREE EXPERT RATINGS. ALSO EVERY BODY SHOULD GET AT LEAST 1 RATING POINT FOR WINNING AGAINST A VERY LOW RATED PLAYER . OTHERWISE THERE IS NO SENSE TO PLAYING THEM.
I'm glad you aren't in charge of the rating system. It's based on math. If Magnus plays a 1000 player 1000 times he would get 1000 free rating according to you. Magnus would never lose and should not earn points for beating a player that statistically has no chance of winning.
For years, and as recently as a few months ago, new unrated players were blocked from joining team matches due to insufficient activity. They had to find and play some games in individual, as opposed to team, matches first before they could get even the 400, 800, or 1200 rating that was offered.
Chess.com blocked the new unrated players from joining team matches. I would create fun, friendly U1200 matches for brand new beginners who were excited to join Chess.com and a new team and play in their first team match, and chess.com would block them and not let them play due to insufficient activity to determine a proper rating. I believe c.c was trying to prevent strong players from creating a new account, giving themselves a low rating, say 1200, and then entering an important team match and pickIng up 2 easy points for their team.
Yes...the idea is that eventually we all share in a utopian rating and be happy being in utopia and playing each other in one big happy family. The old imperial capitalism of elitism, divisim, and nazi will be gone.
Where can I find the number of players that join each day? By looking at the leaderboard statistics, I can find the total number of members and the total number of active members (there's quite a difference between the two numbers), but I've yet to find the number joining each day.
New members of chess.com used to be required to have some activity before they could get a daily rating, and then that rating was usually 1200, 800, or 400. Now brand new unrated players are joining chess.com within the last few weeks with zero speed chess games or any activity of any kind, and they are getting 2000 ratings for individual matches with a single opponent AND for joining team matches!!! For many it took a life time of struggle to earn a 2000 rating, and now chess.com is handing them out like cookies at grandma’s house. What is going on?
i give u gammar english reward
New members of chess.com used to be required to have some activity before they could get a daily rating, and then that rating was usually 1200, 800, or 400. Now brand new unrated players are joining chess.com within the last few weeks with zero speed chess games or any activity of any kind, and they are getting 2000 ratings for individual matches with a single opponent AND for joining team matches!!! For many it took a life time of struggle to earn a 2000 rating, and now chess.com is handing them out like cookies at grandma’s house. What is going on?
like the others said it is because of your initial choice of how good you are. Dont think of that as their actual rating because they need to play a few games to see hiw good they are. If they are not that good ther rating will drop quickly.