Checking if Elo system is oppressive [With proofs]

Anyone else getting bored with arguing in circles? I would completely roast Janko again but since he is so cowardly as to ignore I exist (lol, probably afraid to lose another game), I just want to point out that Janko would basically keep repeating 'stop bully' until you guys go crazy. So let's just let this and Janko and basketstorm rot.

I decided to explore the side I'm against' argument to actually see whether they could be right.

Let's imagine a REALLY SIMPLE rating system where a loss = -10 points, and a win = +10 points.

Let's also imagine everyone has started at their true rating.

GM Ivan Claude (2800) makes a mistake against GM Sven Bolchev (2790) and loses a game.

Ivan then wins against GM Steven Karley (2780)

Steven then wins against John Metre (2770)

The cycle repeats. Until everyone's ratings go back to normal except Sven is now 2800. I call this a rating ripple, depending on how the ripple started, someone's rating will be higher or lower than when the ripple started. Now imagine more ripples starting during this ripple, then more ripples because of these more ripples and other unrelated reasons. Now everybody isn't at their true rating anymore. And this rating ripple can also be caused by Sven losing, the only outcome of a game that DOESN'T start a rating ripple or keep one going is a draw. Most games aren't draws, and as play becomes further from perfect fewer draws occur, so at lower skill there are lots of ripples causing much more chaos. this seems to align with what I agreed that ratings are extremely chaotic at low skill except this version supports basketstorm's claim that the rating system is at fault more.

I don't know whether that progressed the argument at all, it sort of just came back to the one point I agreed with basketstorm on with not much development except a new argument for basketstorm. This is a really simplified rating system so idk if it can actually be used as an argument for either side.

Point is rating system here is flawed due to multiple factors, including ones Arpad Elo (creator of Elo ratings) warned about. Ratings here are very inaccurate, both inflated and deflated and with serious localized distortions. This contributes to a frustrating experience of a wildly inconsistent strength of opponents within same rating range.

OG game is rigged cant win still exists, I have archived every single post and page, I wrote A Plugging that helped me, indeed My dear friends

Bro I know you are angry abou elo rating being oppressive, but to be honest, what do you think chess.com will do? I feel like chess.com won't really do much since it's their site and they're not gonna change the elo to a better and unoppressed elo rating. What do you even mean the chess elo being oppressive? I don't see anyone describing chess elo as oppressive or something similar to that. Anyway I don't really care about this chess elo not being really good what do you want me to do, and all this yapping isn't even gonna improve the situation.

Yapping is what you're doing. There are few simple steps that can be done to improve the situation with ratings. I commented in other topic, copying here:

They can't break through the low Elo barrier because many low Elo players are highly skilled and they keep each other down. Like if 90% of 200 Elo players are as strong as 1000 Elo, they will be paired against each other and winratio will be 50% so their rating will not change. (sure 5% are truly 200, but another 5% is say 1200 who climb to their unwanted destination - 300 where other 1200s are crumpled). This is just an example, proportions could be different, but when there's not enough crossplay and when initial rating is inherently inaccurate such situations are unavoidable. This is called a localized pool. To remove such pools chess.com needs to conduct mandatory pool-joining tournaments and do hard recalculation with reassignments of ratings. This was described in Arpad Elo (creator of Elo system) book, I'm not making things up. And to prevent such pools, you need to stop rating people right from the start and stop them from affecting rating of others. First they must play a considerable amount of games (like 50 maybe) against players who have a well established rating, then they can receive their initial rating (not like now - you say you're beginner, advanced etc during registration and you get rated immediately and you then affect ratings of everyone - that's crazy). And you should not allow tight matchmaking, must be something random within wide range like +/- 200 Elo to ensure good cross-play, yes that would be predictable win/loss but this is necessary to avoid localized distortions.

I wasn't even accusing you of yapping, but you know what, I'm not old enough to be involved in this and just stayed quiet. Have fun checking elo ratings being oppressive I guess.

Yapping is what you're doing. There are few simple steps that can be done to improve the situation with ratings. I commented in other topic, copying here:

They can't break through the low Elo barrier because many low Elo players are highly skilled and they keep each other down. Like if 90% of 200 Elo players are as strong as 1000 Elo, they will be paired against each other and winratio will be 50% so their rating will not change. (sure 5% are truly 200, but another 5% is say 1200 who climb to their unwanted destination - 300 where other 1200s are crumpled). This is just an example, proportions could be different, but when there's not enough crossplay and when initial rating is inherently inaccurate such situations are unavoidable. This is called a localized pool. To remove such pools chess.com needs to conduct mandatory pool-joining tournaments and do hard recalculation with reassignments of ratings. This was described in Arpad Elo (creator of Elo system) book, I'm not making things up. And to prevent such pools, you need to stop rating people right from the start and stop them from affecting rating of others. First they must play a considerable amount of games (like 50 maybe) against players who have a well established rating, then they can receive their initial rating (not like now - you say you're beginner, advanced etc during registration and you get rated immediately and you then affect ratings of everyone - that's crazy). And you should not allow tight matchmaking, must be something random within wide range like +/- 200 Elo to ensure good cross-play, yes that would be predictable win/loss but this is necessary to avoid localized distortions.

I don't think so because basket is always trying to start an argument with me and claims Kramnik doesn't accuse people of cheating whereas Janko just wants chess to be fairer even if he is a little extreme.

He had the same profile picture (ai generated ) that janko had about a month ago or even earlier(when he first created the account)

My style and ideas are completely different. No similarities at all. Your conspiracy theory is concerning, are you ok?