Chess.com Ratings are a JOKE

I like this idea. To solve a ”problem” in a way that is positive to everyone.

I think that's another benefit though... because you'd have to apply for permission, and chess.com wouldn't let it happen very many times because they wouldn't want to give out 100s of memberships a day.

As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, I am pretty sure there is something very fishy about the gameplay at sub-1000 levels on chess.com, which more talented players are unlikely to notice.  I didn't really notice this till I eventually started played in tournaments where the rating ranges were much wider, say +/-400, than the individual auto-selection.  Everything seemed inverted, my gameplay was much better against players much higher rated and much worst against those much lower.  After playing 100s of games using the auto-selection method my rating was moreorless static. I came to the conclusion that the only way to really increase my rating was to target much higher rated players - not an easy thing to consistently do on CCC.  The whole experience was counter-intuitive to real world chess progress., and totally undermined the ELO system.

You have zero games on this account.

I mean, it's a nice story, but you have no idea how often someone will say something like...

... well for example, a few days ago some noob was complaining about how he always loses as white against the scandinavian after 1.e4 d5... so I looked in his game history and saw that in his last 100 games he had that position 6 times AND ONLY LOST ONCE.

This happens all the time. People are always saying completely stupid and untrue things. Whether they do it on purpose, I don't know, but without a game history there's 0% chance I believe you.

Others like 

[long-@ss rant about how chess.com is a literal pack of satanic freaks for making him 9 out of 10 games with black]

Then you go to their history and out of 2000 games they've had 1016 with white...

Literally a 100% chance.

Just like somehow whenever you see a chessboard on a movie there's nearly a 100% chance the bottom right corner is black.

Lol you telling me what I learn from?

Naroditskys speedruns is in my opinion the best content in Chess on youtube. He is a perfect coach. 1700 players do misstake that GM dont do and therefor I learn how to punish the misstakes or how to counter stuff that happens on my lvl.

Two strong GM playing eachother is not the same thing.

I don't know man, maybe there are some sort of walls...

But I will say it's normal for progress to be 2 steps forwards and one step back. I don't think it's unnatural to reach a new peak, then fall back down.

Yeah I support Naroditsky and I support his speedrun. You and me have different opinion. And I am gonna leave it at that.

Oh I see, you're saying  there are people who start at 800, and so people from, IDK, 700-900 run into them, lose games, and become underrated, and so they in turn play people like you and keep you down.

I guess something like that might happen... I don't think it'd be as big of a wall as you're making it out to be... but I can see how there could be an argument there. I still think you'd be facing people who are nearly correctly rated... you know, like only 10 points down or something from that 1 game they lost unfairly.

Its easy as a beginner to blame the system, blame the cheaters, blame speedrunners, blame the ratingsystem. But I would recommend beginners to look at your losses, accept your losses. Its more likely that you have lost to a normal player then anything else. And if you accept the losses you can then spend the time to analyse the games and why you lost instead. Because in the end you lose because you make misstakes. Take those losses as a chance to get better. To analyse a lost game is a great way to get better even if is a game versus a cheater you can still learn something.

This is only true if the ELO system is universal, i.e. the only one that exists. If you have multiple ECO systems in operation, then each system is capable of converging to a different average, for different seeding ratings. The prime example of this being the difference between the LiChess/Chess.com averages. 

I could also appeal to Chaos Theory and predict that if a given ELO system was regularly reset and the same seed rating used, the resultant averages could be very distinct - note titled players would have to be prohibited from seeding their OTB ratings.  However, this would be guesswork on my part as I can think of no real-world examples as evidence.   

In 2010, on these forums, I was telling people that ratings are a relative measure... yes, I know this

agreed. my rating is 500 but I can play a 1100 rated computer

I sometimes think economics would be a good analogy because things have intrinsic value, and then on top of that you have different markets that give it a different value in terms of currency. The easiest example being a lump of gold is worth ____ USD and ____ Yen and even though the numbers are different the value they represent is the same.

As for the chaos theory thing, maybe you could work it into economics, although I don't know enough about that to be sure. On a day-to-day level the stock market is supposedly random right? Something like that.

I know 1100s who would crush Magnus and Naka if they worked together..  Chess.com does nothing about them, because they don't care.  Go to the hidden forum that you are not allowed to go to and complain there where you can't post a complaint. 

You know way too much. I'm surpised you are still alive.

Yeah that would worry me the most. Going back to gaming culture there could well be a lot of these ALT accounts - assuming little is done to block them.

Jump off track for a moment. The recent attempt by Elon Musk to purchase Twicher has stalled over the exact number of Bot accounts the platform has. The company says 8%, whereas Musk argues for much more. The number of accounts an internet company has is a very important statistic in measuring the value of the company. 

The question therefore maybe, 'What % of ALT accounts would it take to affect the low-level gameplay and consequently ELO system on Chess.com?".

If the % is over the threshold, then much would be explained.

I, for one, don't care. If everything you say is true, so be it. I got to 1127 and then started losing. Now I'm trying to hang on to 1000. Maybe in reality, my skill level is 1300, but I couldn't care less. I'll feel good about 1300 when I can beat 1200 players on chess.com. This is my chess universe. I don't play OTB other than with grandkids and such. So whatever chess.com says I am is what I say I am. That's just me and my opinion.....not really disagreeing with the OP. 

I can assure you I have giving an honest opinion of my very subjective experience.  Of course, any deductions derived from that experience could be entirely wrong and a single example is unlikely to be proof anything.  However, as an individual I can but act on my own experience. I never intent to play humans on this account.

I am not asking anyone to believe me, I am not a prophet!