1. that bell curve includes those 1200's as 1200's
2. if they have just joined chess.com, they're very likely to be new at it(i'm an exception)
A Subtle Disadvantage. Please read and give opinion.
Sort:
calvinhobbesliker wrote:
1. that bell curve includes those 1200's as 1200's
I'm not sure I understand that. First off how can someone be included in a bell curve calculation if they have just joined? And even if it does somehow count these people, it would still be innacurate as their true rank has not been figured yet.
Apr 12, 2008
0
#4
One solution to your problem might involve a little bit of work on your part.
Go to "view players" from the menu on your "Online Chess" homepage and in the "find player" bar put 1050 in the rating min. box and 1199 in the rating max. box. Click on "search." This will give you a list of all the players in that range. But it will also give to their win/loss/draw totals, from which you can see how many games they have played (and this will tell you how close their rating reflects their true skill as well as allowing you to eliminate untried players). A little more work is that you can click on their names and examine their past games and get a little insight into what openings they prefer, etc. Then, rather than issuing a blanket seek, you can make a list of players that meet your criteria and challenge each one personally.
batgirl wrote:
One solution to your problem might involve a little bit of work on your part.
Go to "view players" from the menu on your "Online Chess" homepage and in the "find player" bar put 1050 in the rating min. box and 1199 in the rating max. box. Click on "search." This will give you a list of all the players in that range. But it will also give to their win/loss/draw totals, from which you can see how many games they have played (and this will tell you how close their rating reflects their true skill as well as allowing you to eliminate untried players). A little more work is that you can click on their names and examine their past games and get a little insight into what openings they prefer, etc. Then, rather than issuing a blanket seek, you can make a list of players that meet your criteria and challenge each one personally.
That's a really good idea, thank you.
If 1400 is the mean, then might it not be better to start all new players at that rating (instead of 1200)? Another solution is to defer giving ratings to new players until they attain 30 games. 
why not start a game at 1050-1199 then?
Apr 12, 2008
0
#8
"Don't they implement that here?"
Yes they do, though I'm not sure it's in any visual form. It's been discussed many times. You can use the forum's search function to find how exactly the rating system (Glicko, I think) works here.
Glicko 2
Provisional ratings could solve this problem but i think batgirls idea is more realistic.
So I was considering something today that might be considered trivial by some, but hopefully will open up an interesting debate.
If you're like me then you're not the best chess player in the world. I think I am slowly getting better and I'm currently working my way up the 1100 range.
However there is something I've noticed. Whenever I create a range for a game I will make the range about 1050-1200. From this, a good portion of my oppenents are people for whom it is their first game, thus they are ranked 1200.
Now comes the subtle disadvantage...
The bell curve states that the average chess player (at least on this site) is somewhere around 1400, therefore, these first timers I am playing are going to be on average at a 1400 playing ability.
Now don't get me wrong I don't mind taking on someone in that rank, and I can put up a good fight, however the disadvantage is the fact that when I lose I will lose a significant more amount of points than if they had come into their true rank (again, around 1400 on average).
So to prevent this I currently am making my range 1050-1199, however I know as I move up I will inevitably have to face these mystery 1200's again.
So what is everyone's opinion there is alot more factors in this and I wan't to know what y'all think.