I remember when I joined chess.com... back in the Late Bronze Age... we didn't get to pick a rating. They gave you 1200 and said "Here! Take this and shut up!".
We had to work our way up from there, fighting for every point. You kids nowadays have it easy.
You forgot to mention the bears.
Isn't that effectively what happens? I started at 1200, won most of my games and my rating quickly increased. If Chess.com used a provisional system similar to the USCF's, I would have reached the same rating. It just might have been a bit quicker.
Effectively, yes, just without the initial rating, which is the entire problem that started this discussion. To me, it seems like it would solve the problem without having to change that much.
It would be less of a concern if people would just take it for what it is. A starting point. My USCF starting point was a provisional rating calculated after my first four tournament games. The only difference is that one is arbitrary, the other has some basis.
Plus, for some weird reason, you go to another chess site that begins with "Li" and my rating there, on average, is 300 points higher than it is here.
I think that is because Chess.com's minimum rating is 100. The other site's is 600. This shifts the distribution curve to the right. You need to look at percentile. On Chess.com, mine is around 90%. On the other site, it's 85%, pretty much the same.
I remember when I joined chess.com... back in the Late Bronze Age... we didn't get to pick a rating. They gave you 1200 and said "Here! Take this and shut up!".
We had to work our way up from there, fighting for every point. You kids nowadays have it easy.
I remember that happened with me but since a strong player will increase from 1200 to 1900 in about four hours, there's no harm done.
It only lets me scroll back through 5000 games so I can't check.
It only lets me scroll back through 5000 games so I can't check.
I don't know if basic members have access, but the game archive has an advanced search option that lets you search by date.
Just to repeat my opinion for the sake of it (and echoing what many have said):
If you are truly a 2000 player, you will get up there in due time. If you are a 2000 player, you probably love chess, and will play lots of games to get to 2000.
As for everyone else, 1200 is fine. No beginner/intermediate/advanced needed. Play some games and then you'll find out which one you are.
As for titled players, I'm sure (if this doesn't already exist) if you go through the process of proving you are titled, chess.com will have no problem bumping your starting rating to 2000.
I remember when I joined chess.com... back in the Late Bronze Age... we didn't get to pick a rating. They gave you 1200 and said "Here! Take this and shut up!".
We had to work our way up from there, fighting for every point. You kids nowadays have it easy.
I remember that happened with me but since a strong player will increase from 1200 to 1900 in about four hours, there's no harm done.
There is harm done, to the rating system itself, which I explained multiple times in this topic.
Yes, I accept that and agree with it, up to a point. However, a lot of people don't take it seriously.
If you were to take it all seriously then it's a bad mistake.
Bye bye
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?
As @BSAeagle60 mentioned, you choose your "level" when creating an account and it's been that way for a quite a while now. If someone chooses something a lot stronger than their actual strength, they will quickly drop based on the way Glicko RD works.
I never knew that was a thing until now 🤷♂️
Much like if a 2800 fide rated player started at 400 it wouldn't take too many games to get to there.
If people take the 2000 rating willingly and lose games, it just brings them to their natural content.
If people take the 2000 rating willingly and lose games, it just brings them to their natural content.
Yes, but players don't exist in a vacuum. It impacts other players in all rated games, tournaments, and matches.
tru
fals
I remember when I joined chess.com... back in the Late Bronze Age... we didn't get to pick a rating. They gave you 1200 and said "Here! Take this and shut up!".
We had to work our way up from there, fighting for every point. You kids nowadays have it easy.