CooloutAC wrote:
I've never seen someone so wrong on these forums.
You obviously are not reading your own posts then.
Chess.com Ratings are a JOKE
Sort:
This site is about 800 points overrated compared to real ratings
Your explanation for your subjective experience only makes since if your 1200 ("little timmies") pool of players /never plays anyone in the higher rating pool/. Otherwise, as a cohort the lower ratings would all increase together, and the higher ratings would all decrease.
It also only makes sense if every player who is improving /has exactly the same rate of improvement/. Otherwise, players in the lower rated pool would improve at different rates, therefore have a distribution of expected match outcomes over all pairings, as usual, and their ratings would adjust according to that in the usual way.
Both of these or clearly not true.
Bruh, PawnTsunami was talking about there Classical rating in USCF so .... Blitz USCF ain't matter learn chess then come and fight, at least learn the OTB things
We've already established he is bad at math, reading, comprehension, chess, and now we know he is incapable of reading a tournament history and rating history chart. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.