Forums

Chess.com Ratings are a JOKE

Sort:
TheBullyMaguire

I am 1100 rating.
Or so I thought…
After making a different account than my main one, 15 matches later, I am 1700 rating.

What the hell? 

Let me explain what is going on here, and why the rating system is severely flawed, and also why you may be better than you think.

Let’s say you start an account.

You are 800 rating.

You play until you are around 1100-1200. Perhaps at this rating most people either stop playing or completely commit to chess. 


At this point you stop improving for some months, or so it would seem. Although you play every day, you just can’t seem to get higher in the rankings. 

What gives?

Meanwhile, thousands of other little Timmy’s are doing the exact same thing. 

Let’s say all the people in that rating are improving in skill at the same rate you are. That means no matter how hard you try, you will never get out.

You can be rated 2000 and still be in 1200. Exaggeration? Perhaps. But consider if most 1200’s are actually 300-400 points higher than their actual rating, that means it would take at least 100-200 rating of skill (generalities I know) to consistently beat opponents in that skill bracket to get out.

No one seems to get this. No one seems to care. But I do. Because most people will quit around 1200 because they don’t see their dumb rating improving. 

In reality, you’re probably much better than you realize. 

NMRhino
That’s not true at all. If your a 1700 then you should be winning 98% of the time against 1000 rated players so if your stuck in that rating range then you shouldn’t because you’d be winning all of the games.
llama36
TheBullyMaguire wrote:

After making a different account than my main one, 15 matches later, I am 1700 rating.

What the hell? 

Play 50 games, default seek setting, zero rematches.

Do that with 10 different accounts and you'll get the same rating on every one.

llama36
TheBullyMaguire wrote:

Let me explain what is going on here, and why the rating system is severely flawed

First link the alt and let's see the games...

Jalex13
Why do you have two accounts is my question
llama36

Also, give me a password to an account that is 1100 rated and has a low RD (meaning many games have been played at that rating)... supposedly I wont be able to raise the account's rating very much because everyone is secretly underrated. I guess we'd find out...

... also some mod will probably warn this is against the rules, blah blah blah. Meanwhile 100 GMs are streaming themselves on smurf accounts crushing 800 rated players, so shove it up your ***

TheBullyMaguire
NMRhino wrote:
That’s not true at all. If your a 1700 then you should be winning 98% of the time against 1000 rated players so if your stuck in that rating range then you shouldn’t because you’d be winning all of the games.

I am currently winning 50% of games against 1600-1700 rated players. Can beat the 1600 chess bot every other round. And do 2100 rated puzzles. 

Then I go to my 1200 rated main, and win the same amount of the time, but sometimes even getting crushed. And even worse, sometimes going on lose streaks. 

People believe in this rating system, but I don’t. To me, it’s completely irrelevant and actually quite superficial. 

Jalex13
What you are saying sounds pretty sketchy to me.
ChessDude009
TheBullyMaguire wrote:
NMRhino wrote:
That’s not true at all. If your a 1700 then you should be winning 98% of the time against 1000 rated players so if your stuck in that rating range then you shouldn’t because you’d be winning all of the games.

I am currently winning 50% of games against 1600-1700 rated players. Can beat the 1600 chess bot every other round. And do 2100 rated puzzles. 

Then I go to my 1200 rated main, and win the same amount of the time, but sometimes even getting crushed. And even worse, sometimes going on lose streaks. 

People believe in this rating system, but I don’t. To me, it’s completely irrelevant and actually quite superficial. 

Link the account.

While it could be true that the majority of players at that rating are improving, that would mean that Chess.com will slowly push its average ratings down as new players come in.

Also, I'm 2200 on my school account and 1600 on my main, and I can CONFIRM 2200 players play much harder than 1600 players. I just got lucky.

 

bdub76
Go get an OTB rating. Play here for fun.
TheBullyMaguire
NMRhino wrote:
That’s not true at all. If your a 1700 then you should be winning 98% of the time against 1000 rated players so if your stuck in that rating range then you shouldn’t because you’d be winning all of the games.

I thought this as well. That’s why I’m shocked and will never play on my main again.

TheBullyMaguire
bdub76 wrote:
Go get an OTB rating. Play here for fun.

How do you do this? What’s the first step? 

llama36
TheBullyMaguire wrote:

I Can beat the 1600 chess bot every other round. And do 2100 rated puzzles. 

That's about right for 1100 lol.

Puzzles and bots are massively overrated.

llama36
ChessDude009 wrote:

Link the account.

 

In before started at 2000, accidentally won a game when opponent left on move 10, then lost a few games down to 1700...

So yeah, obviously he wont link it.

TheBullyMaguire
CooloutAC wrote:

I believe there are separate hurdles and fences that once you jump over things get easier.  It could be for the reasons you state,  but also related is the fact chess.com allows new accounts to choose there starting rating.   400,  800,  1200.   We all saw koweranai when he made his new account at 1400 take 200 games to get back to 2200 even with a 50 game win streak.   So guys stuck at that 1400 with all the other koweranai's making their account at that rating will be struggling.  But once they get to 1500 things will probably get a little easier until the next hurdle.   

So ya,  in short I agree with you although whether quitting,  or simply making new accounts the reason is most likely the same.  Aand its not just at the 1200 rating.  its other various intervals.

 Personally I like the rating system on lichess better.  Everyone starts at the same rating and matches and ratings feel more consistent.  i'm not hung up on the fact its a higher number then chess.com or OTB ratings,  because thats irrelevant.  The point of a rating system is for competitive matches and fair rankings,  and to determine expected skill within the playerbase.

I believe you made a good point. I think it is at the intervals that people get hung up on. For instance I went had a hard time going from 800-1000 but once I broke it I went to 1200 instantly. Then couldn’t get out of that. I think my 1700 will be a more even playing experience because it seems like everyone I face is around the same skill, rather than at 1200 sometimes I will crush or be crushed. 

llama36
CooloutAC wrote:

We all saw koweranai when he made his new account at 1400 take 200 games to get back to 2200 even with 50 game win streaks.

200 is way too long.

I accidentally started at 1600 on this account. Took me 30 games to get to 2200 blitz (rusty with bullet so took me longer).

TheBullyMaguire
nMsALpg wrote:
TheBullyMaguire wrote:

I Can beat the 1600 chess bot every other round. And do 2100 rated puzzles. 

That's about right for 1100 lol.

Puzzles and bots are massively overrated.

How are bots massively overrated when they are literally programmed to reflect a certain skill level? 

llama36
TheBullyMaguire wrote:
nMsALpg wrote:
TheBullyMaguire wrote:

I Can beat the 1600 chess bot every other round. And do 2100 rated puzzles. 

That's about right for 1100 lol.

Puzzles and bots are massively overrated.

How are bots massively overrated when they are literally programmed to reflect a certain skill level? 

Because chess.com is dumb as hell.

(But really, that's a good question... it's been asked before... no idea why chess.com chooses to do this)

TheBullyMaguire
nMsALpg wrote:
TheBullyMaguire wrote:
nMsALpg wrote:
TheBullyMaguire wrote:

I Can beat the 1600 chess bot every other round. And do 2100 rated puzzles. 

That's about right for 1100 lol.

Puzzles and bots are massively overrated.

How are bots massively overrated when they are literally programmed to reflect a certain skill level? 

Because chess.com is dumb as hell.

(But really, that's a good question... it's been asked before... no idea why chess.com chooses to do this)

I think I will try lichess. See what my rating is there and report back to this thread. 

GMegasDoux

It is all outcome based. The amount your score fluctuates initially is quite a lot until it after a few games a level is found and you need to climb. So let us say you win a few games by good play or opponents play bad then your rating might have stabalised higher rather than lower before any subsequent losses have a hit to your score. Once a score finds a stable level advancement takes a lot of wins. Also just because your opponent has a level their rating is at doesnt mean they play at a consistent accuracy level. You can beat people a few hundered points above you and lose to those a few hundered bellow and such inconsistent play means you dont move much in Elo. These things happen.