10,000 RATING Possible?

Again:  It's not cheating.

Isn't that the only definition that matters?  By definition, if it's allowed it's not cheating.

It's impossible.I say so because: 

1)You need to have back to back PERFECT games,against top rated players and beat them.

2) When your rating reaches let's say 3000 and you beat a 2200,you may not get points.If you do manage to get points (which is unlikely) it may be 1-3 points or so. It's the same scenario when a 1700 rated player beats a 900 rated player.The 1700 doesn't get points, but if he gets,which is highly unlikely it may be 1 point.This is so because of the points system chess.com uses.if the gap is too wide (800 points) ,you being the stronger player,cannot get points, because of this points system.

So to conclude, it's impossible, even if you cheat! lol

It is possible, but it is very cruel, playing people far weaker than you.  It's not cheating, it's just being cheap.

That should be true, exept there's a bug in the ratings calculation that never awards less than 1 point, no matter who you've beaten.  A rating of 10,000 can be reached, in theory, one... point... at... a... time....

OK then,TheGrobe, point taken acknowledged. OK. What about this scenario. You have "diamond" membership everything, and u don't dc anymore.What if you reached 6000 points and you are playing a 2200 rated player,and electricity goes and your computer shuts down? Game abandoned, you lose 2000+ points gone (if so little). What if your Internet goes down while playing a 2000 rated player. game abandoned. you lose, tonnes of points gone. What if your mouse slips and you make a bad play which cost u the match. What if your PC crashes. And the list can go on and on. You see most if not all of these things will be beyond your control,and are stumbling blocks in your road to 10,000 points. Nobody iz perfect,so 1 of these is bound 2 happen at some point in time. So i cling to my view.IMPOSSIBLE!

Well, improbable, anyway, but I probably would have said the same thing about 4200....

Colin, why do you think he would lose 2000 points for losing a single game? I'm sure it's way less than that. I would guess a few dozen points at most, though I'm not sure exactly the rating formulas being used. Maybe my guess is too low and yours is closer, but at the moment, I really doubt that. Anybody have any information on this?

A mod showed me an article Loomis,about the rating system on chess.com.but i don't have the link so sorry. But your point is acknowledged.

I think the max points you can win or lose is 16, if you've played many games

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSl-h9ebI6I 

So yeah, he plays GMs and is quite proficient at blitz. Our 1-minute pool just isn't that strong.  I don't think he's cheating - I know a few players who could achieve similar results if they played here instead of ICC.

To have a bloated rating through continually beating MUCH lower rated players is unethical imo. The best way to stop this is to not give even 1 point for a win if the rating gap is  500 points or more. Chess.com implemented this idea for the turn based games I believe and its a good idea.

I played with the formulas a bit. If a 6000 lost to a 2200, his loss of points would depend a lot on the ratings deviations of the two players. If they are both around 50, the loss would be about 13 points. If the 6000 has an RD of 150 and the 2200 has an RD of 50, the loss is about 125 points. If both RDs are 150 the loss is about 99 points.

Well the reason I got annoyed is because ChessNetwork of course already knows the answer to this question.  He just wanted to create a forum where everyone could talk about him and his rating - which of course we are all doing now.  Mission Accomplished!

The glicko rating system which is used here at chess.com is easily manipulated.  If you play a lot of games the system assumes your rating is more accurate.  Therefore you will only lose a relatively small amount of points for a loss (no matter the rating discrepancy between your opponent) and yet still always gain at least a point for a win.  A loss or two won't derail him at all, meaning the only thing standing between him and 10,000... and really 20,000 or above, is the strength of his committment to sit in a chair all day obliterating weak opponents.  Time is his only obstacle, as he'll still have to win thousands of games before he reaches his goal.  For most people, the tolerance for this type of behavior would be low as boredom would inevitably set in. 

But, if you have a bunch of people talking about you and manage to get bit of a pseudo-celebrity status going here at chess.com, well I suppose that makes it a bit easier to press on.  I'm sure he still gets extremely bored though, but he looks at that next 1000 points as a beacon for him to continue.  He probably fantasizes how his "fans" here at chess.com will react when he reaches each subsequent plateau.

I think that at the end of the day he may just be setting himself up for a big disappointment:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/live-chess-stats-a-painful-dilemna

Did he tell you this?  Did I miss a post saying that he already knew the answer and only posted for the reasons you have put up?  How do you know he posted for these reasons?  Or are you just guessing?

Hi Everyone:

Veselin Topalov has a FIDE rating of 2813. According to the math, if someone is able to defeat him 100% of the time, say 100 games out of a 100 with no draws or losses, then that someone would be rated at least 3213 (400 points higher). This is far less than 10,000. I dont think any human has or will have the mental ability to be 10,000 but I think we do have the mental ability to get to 3000.

Anyone agrees or disagrees with this assessment?

-Joses-

In the glicko system, 400 points higher represents about a 1 in 10 chance of defeating your opponent, depending on rating deviations.

No you didn't miss a post.  Seriously, this is just common sense. ChessNetwork knows how easy it was for him to get to 4000.  Ummmm, when someone has  thousands of wins against 10 or so losses, they are not exactly sweating it out.  Do you understand?  The only question is if he is willing to play thousands of more uneventful games to get there.  He knows it's no more difficult to get to 5000... 6000... etc.  Want to know how I know?  Because like I said, he's already gotten to 4000+ without even slightly breaking a sweat.  Unless chess.com changes the ratings formula where it doesn't give a point per win no matter the players' ratings... or as others suggested, possibly wipe everyone's stats... there is no limit to how high ChessNetwork can get as long as he cherry picks his opponents like he has.  Suggo, you don't think he already knows this???

Hi guys,

I am dumbfounded.  I dont know what to make of this.  The guy that started this topic is rated 4200 in 'live' 'quick' chess.  I would have thought that was impossible.  I think this shows that ratings are just a number.  If our world champions are rated at 2750-2800, this 4200 rating clearly indicates a bug in our (Chess.com's) ratings system.  I would say it is the rating system that needs 'patched' to prevent this. 

As to the player, .... well, good for him.  If this was his goal, he has achieved it.  I think most of us would prefer a more competitive game, but if he enjoys his 'style' of chess, I say, good for him.  He is enjoying himself and not hurting anyone else. 

Watch your backrank.