It really doesn't make any difference. Why would this be better than 1200?
players from site opening tree
Sort:
If there are no advantages to changing the starter-rating, then the starter-rating needn't be changed.
Besides, it would mess up the entire system.
Aug 8, 2009
0
#5
No it wouldn't. You would have what's popular on this site as oppose to the masters and GM'S.oTHER SITE HAS IT AND it works fine,really a fine idea!
Aug 8, 2009
0
#6
any suggestion like this is best presented to Erik - for consideration by him and his team of staff members. changes and implementation decisions on changes belongs to Erik.
moderator
I dont think that they will change it to 1600. Because if players start dropping from 1600 to their true rating fast they will think that they are bad(because loosing soo many points) and that would be bad for buissnes. but when you go from 1200 and then go up you get confidence and want to play more....and nothing wrong with that.
Defacto wrote:
I dont think that they will change it to 1600. Because if players start dropping from 1600 to their true rating fast they will think that they are bad(because loosing soo many points) and that would be bad for buissnes. but when you go from 1200 and then go up you get confidence and want to play more....and nothing wrong with that.
With a 1600 starting point, and assuming everyone's rating would be raised 400 points, a player's rating would be 400 points higher than it would be if starting at 1200. The rating would be true for the pool of players on the site.
A major downside would be the increased misuse of the term "inflation" in the forums. Not recommending it but for that reason I would suggest lowering the starting point (and the rating of all players currently in the pool). Everyone's rating would remain valid for the site.
I SUGGUEST starting at 1600.