Agreed to that. Although that isn't the issue that people bring up. It's the effect of a long layoff which distorts ratings badly and makes people not want to play games rated by Glicko.
Tell that to chess.com cheater club about my rating actually alot of people think my rating is inaccurate
I think maybe raring gets more accurate the more you play but skill level might not
Could there be a reason for this ?
Point being the ridiculous weighting given to the first few games after a layoff and bearing in mind the assumption that there HAS been a layoff and it isn't just people not playing Glicko Games but playing ELO ones instead. Their ability may be the same, may have improved. They play a couple of games when they have a bad cold or whatever, lose them and wham! 200 rating points gone. That's why ppl don't like it. Because it's silly.
They do it in lichess to it makes sense new accounts get a boost the more games they play the more accurate it gets it is unfair to set everyone at 100 elo and force them to work their way up when they are not 100 elo (or even 1600 elo )
Agreed to that. Although that isn't the issue that people bring up. It's the effect of a long layoff which distorts ratings badly and makes people not want to play games rated by Glicko.
Tell that to chess.com cheater club about my rating actually alot of people think my rating is inaccurate
I think maybe raring gets more accurate the more you play but skill level might not
Could there be a reason for this ?
I just think you play in a weak pool at that level. Just one of those things. I don't think you cheat.
Nah they are all like 2000+ fida they aren't weak
Most people know almost nothing about chess ratings. Anyone who read this topic now knows more than 99% of people commenting online about it. Congrats
Lol I actually noticed the rating deflation and tried to explain it to someone but they said gms would be effected to
Could you explain how it doesn't effect higher rates players as much ? So people don't get confused