nah you maybe get +10 elo for beating them 50 times and you also get +10 elo for beating someone your own rating so it works out the same
on chess.com tho youre guaranteed to lose rating if you played someone 700 elo lower rated enough times
because your rating doesnt increase at all when you win
so chess.com actually has an unfair rating system
but if you played them maybe 1000 times youre guaranteed to lose 100 elo
No, simulation wasn't that stupid, I've checked the code. ChatGPT didn't calculate anything, it made a program to run the simulation. Outcome was simulated for each game using probabilities according to hidden strength of players. You trust in rated Elo too much. Just think about the initial situation: all players are rated the same when they sign up. How accurate is that real Elo then? How can you grow or decrease Elo of a player if he competes against players with innacurate Elo? That's the problem.
If only all Elos were correct in the first place. But if you are rated 600 and competing against freshly-joined 200 who is stronger than you actually and you lose to him and you lose a good amount of Elo because of that because the system treats his 200 as "real", that's not even close to a quantification of someone's skill. That's just chaos.
yeah i think elo is really accurate
like you cant get +100 elo by luck
you dont really play many people with low rd to make a difference
Beating 50% of the people at your skill is ideal situation on paper but it doesn't happen, you rarely encounter such people. To encounter such people you need accurate Elos for: 1) you 2) opponent. But because all fresh accounts get exactly the same artificially low Elo (200 or 400 in Rapid) there's no way to do accurate pairing, pairing by actual skill. Situation will not improve even after 1000 games because real skill of players fluctuates that much in low-Elo zone. You need to be a really strong player to break through.
Also because there's a limit (100 Elo), and someone grows after beating you while you hit the limit, that's pure inflation. Sum of all ratings in the system becoming greater.
i checked my win % against players my own rating over thousands of games once
it was 47% wins, 6% draws, 47% losses
elo is crazy accurate
That's not exactly how Glicko works. It's not about being new or old player, the system tracks your inactivity and increases deviation. But while inactive player is penalized for the loss more, you don't gain less than from beating an active player.
i checked my win % against players my own rating over thousands of games once
it was 47% wins, 6% draws, 47% losses
elo is crazy accurate
Elo on average is accurate especially for skilled players. But not in low-Elo zone where actual skill is random and does not correspond to the rating well.
Why do you think so? It's actually precise to the very last digit and easy to prove by running stockfish 1400 against stockfish 1701 multiple times - 15% winrate in the long run. Easy to calibrate. And it doesn't matter, that's just a way to describe that each player has certain strength even if player is unrated.