Anti-Rating inflation Petition - Chess Forums - Page 3

sndeww

Sep 10, 2020

0

#41

Night0Sky wrote:

I'm saying this because my bullet was at it's peak; and the highest rating of all my ratings; and same for some of my friends. And even so, some people had a lower bullet; but now have a higher one because of the increase. imo that's just weird

yeah, like I said. the bullet increase is weird, maybe unnecessary.

KingSideInvasion

Sep 10, 2020

0

#42

SNUDOO wrote:

KingSideInvasion wrote:

@SNUDOO I now know people who have FLAGGED their way to 1800 RAPID.

Look, I now have to face tons of 1600's that are actually 1200's. What is this nonsense? Blitz and rapid are two different things. Somebody who has reached 1600 blitz has reached it by playing BLITZ. NOT RAPID.

If 10 minute blitz was rapid, I would have reached 2000 a long time ago. And those 1200s with inflated rapid ratings, they probably won't play some ridiculously long time control to them and stick to 10 mins. If you don't play 10 mins this shouldn't be a problem, since 15|10 has a different pool of players.

There are plenty of people who play 15|10 occasionally as well. This rating boost is nonsensical.

TheCalculatorKid

Sep 10, 2020

0

#43

I love the changes.

sndeww

Sep 10, 2020

0

#44

TheCalculatorKid wrote:

I love the changes.

lol, bullet

sndeww

Sep 10, 2020

0

#45

KingSideInvasion wrote:

SNUDOO wrote:

KingSideInvasion wrote:

@SNUDOO I now know people who have FLAGGED their way to 1800 RAPID.

Look, I now have to face tons of 1600's that are actually 1200's. What is this nonsense? Blitz and rapid are two different things. Somebody who has reached 1600 blitz has reached it by playing BLITZ. NOT RAPID.

If 10 minute blitz was rapid, I would have reached 2000 a long time ago. And those 1200s with inflated rapid ratings, they probably won't play some ridiculously long time control to them and stick to 10 mins. If you don't play 10 mins this shouldn't be a problem, since 15|10 has a different pool of players.

There are plenty of people who play 15|10 occasionally as well. This rating boost is nonsensical.

yes, occasionally. So their ratings will be slightly off in the 15|10 pool compared to regulars of 15|10. Besides, playing an overrated opponent means free rating points anyways.

sndeww

Sep 10, 2020

0

#46

GreenyKnight2001 wrote:

Not only is this decision stupid, but also it may destroy all the rating system after a flow of players from blitz to bullet.

@Martin_stahl has pointed out that changes like this have been made before. And I don't think people are going to play bullet more.

EternallyBad

Sep 10, 2020

0

#47

Martin_Stahl wrote:

Leon_Likes_Chess wrote:

As you heard here:

https://www.chess.com/news/view/10-minute-chess-now-rapid-rated-bullet-ratings-increased

All rapid ratings and bullet ratings have been heavily increased. This creates TONS of problems, among which include playing people much stronger or weaker at the same rating, huge confusion, and most importantly, leagues such as https://www.chess.com/club/notes/not-so-pro-chess-league and https://www.chess.com/club/not-so-pro-bullet-chess-league have to disband all their teams!!

If you agree that chess.com should undo the changes, sign the petition by saying so below!

Ratings will stabilize quickly for those that play a sufficient number of games. The site has done similar rating adjustments in the past and things kept working.

But all leagues take the peak rating which is gonna be like 300 points above playing strength.

sndeww

Sep 10, 2020

0

#48

why do leagues take peak strength, that isn't even accurate to begin with.

wk_18

Sep 10, 2020

0

#49

ikr

sndeww

Sep 10, 2020

0

#50

GreenyKnight2001 wrote:

SNUDOO napisał:

GreenyKnight2001 wrote:

Not only is this decision stupid, but also it may destroy all the rating system after a flow of players from blitz to bullet.

@Martin_stahl has pointed out that changes like this have been made before. And I don't think people are going to play bullet more.

Rating system is a system of interconnected vessels. Every interference in it makes things even worse and, same as with the inflation of money, everything gets destroyed after several changes, not only after one or two.

interesting. I've never seen any rating changes, so I'll have to see.

UWillResignYesUWill

Sep 10, 2020

0

#51

@SNUDOO lives on this forum lol

sndeww

Sep 10, 2020

0

#52

incorrect. I live on the forums!

Chessplayer2093

Sep 10, 2020

0

#53

GreenyKnight2001 hat geschrieben:

SNUDOO napisał:

GreenyKnight2001 wrote:

Not only is this decision stupid, but also it may destroy all the rating system after a flow of players from blitz to bullet.

@Martin_stahl has pointed out that changes like this have been made before. And I don't think people are going to play bullet more.

Rating system is a system of interconnected vessels. Every interference in it makes things even worse and, same as with the inflation of money, everything gets destroyed after several changes, not only after one or two.

That's propably the best and somehow simultaneously worst summary of the concept of money...

TheCalculatorKid

Sep 10, 2020

0

#54

The reason the bullet change had to happen is on average, a person's bullet rating was 150 lower than their real chess rating. Meaning it wasn't representative of their ability as a chess player. Right now on average it is representative, and over a series of games will normalise.

Typewriter44

Sep 10, 2020

0

#55

TheCalculatorKid wrote:

The reason the bullet change had to happen is on average, a person's bullet rating was 150 lower than their real chess rating. Meaning it wasn't representative of their ability as a chess player. Right now on average it is representative, and over a series of games will normalise.

That wasn't necessary at all! Less people play bullet, so naturally bullet ratings will be lower.

TheCalculatorKid

Sep 10, 2020

0

#56

Bullet represents bullet, of course, but it is also a form of chess. A superior chess player should beat an inferior chess player at any game mode.

sndeww

Sep 10, 2020

0

#57

well I mean, I could lose horribly to a 2000 rapid player and win convincingly against a 2000 bullet player.

Night0Sky

Sep 10, 2020

0

#58

Yeah.

sndeww

Sep 10, 2020

0

#59

If calculatorKid means that the one with the higher rating should beat the lower rating, then that would make more sense.

sndeww

Sep 10, 2020

0

#60

yes, which seems quite obvious and redundant. So maybe that's not what he meant, but the other interpretation doens't work either...