Chess.com ratings have massively deflated since 2020

Sort:
TheMidnightExpress12

Trolls here too?

BigChessplayer665
nklristic wrote:
seberta wrote:

I have had the feeling that it has been getting harder to beat players with the same rating. I have been around the same rating for many years now, and so I wanted to do an analysis on my own games using the accuracy rating of chess.com . I could expand the analysis but wanted to hear some feedback on what you thought about the approach:

I looked at 711 Rapid games I played between 2017 and 2024 and calculated my average accuracy per year, as well as my average rating. I excluded games less than 20 moves as they seemed less relevant in terms of accuracy. I also excluded 2018 and 2021 because I hardly played any games these years.

Then I calculated the ratio of ELO rating per accuracy point by dividing the two, and here is the data I got:

As you can see my accuracy increases over time in the past few years, while my average rating stays similar, leading to a decreasing ratio that is lowest in 2024.

If I expand the analysis to include my opponents, the table shows similar data:

This would indicate a rating deflation, as it gets harder to beat an opponent of a similar rating.

Accuracy was changed in 2021. or 2022, I am not completely sure. So the results will not be great.

As a result, everyone gets higher accuracy now, especially for bad games. I had games with 20 something accuracy before the change, and when I review the game now, it shows 50 or 60 now.

I am actually surprised that the spike is not bigger in your games, though it makes sense that this would impact novice players more drastically than it affects you.

They did it obviously in order for lower rated people not to feel bad about their games. What it actually did is that it probably increased suspicions of cheating.

https://support.chess.com/en/articles/8708970-how-is-accuracy-in-analysis-determined

There are less people with high 90s now (though of course compared to the amount of other games, those are marginal), and a lot less people below 60.

Or, in other words - everyone is beautiful here.

Yup unfortunately the average seems to be around 80 ish for evevryone I think chess.com made it so it compared games based off elo rating like in elo rating estimator and it inflated begginers and deflated better players

BigChessplayer665

It doesn't help that beginners are getting better overall due to YouTube and other easy to reach sources so it would prob be skewed anyway

BigChessplayer665
tygxc wrote:

@10

"there has been a ratings deflation (as well as other side effects) in the FIDE rating system"
++ Yes, but FIDE uses the 1970 elo system with 3 different K, while chess.com uses Glicko-2 with its RD. Glicko-2 requires more calculations, but keeps the RD high as long as the rating has not stabilised.

There was a group where he average beginner rating was 800 now it's 600

TheMidnightExpress12
JankogajdoskoLEGM wrote:
TheMidnightExpress12 wrote:

Trolls here too?

Stop bully me Im not A troll Im A janko Gajdosko, You stop bully ok?

lol. I mean it is a skill issue idk what else to tell you

HangingPiecesChomper

most definitely rigged. why do i see 600 rated players on this site play as strong as super gms?

seberta
nklristic wrote:
seberta wrote:

I have had the feeling that it has been getting harder to beat players with the same rating. I have been around the same rating for many years now, and so I wanted to do an analysis on my own games using the accuracy rating of chess.com . I could expand the analysis but wanted to hear some feedback on what you thought about the approach:

I looked at 711 Rapid games I played between 2017 and 2024 and calculated my average accuracy per year, as well as my average rating. I excluded games less than 20 moves as they seemed less relevant in terms of accuracy. I also excluded 2018 and 2021 because I hardly played any games these years.

Then I calculated the ratio of ELO rating per accuracy point by dividing the two, and here is the data I got:

As you can see my accuracy increases over time in the past few years, while my average rating stays similar, leading to a decreasing ratio that is lowest in 2024.

If I expand the analysis to include my opponents, the table shows similar data:

This would indicate a rating deflation, as it gets harder to beat an opponent of a similar rating.

Accuracy was changed in 2021. or 2022, I am not completely sure. So the results will not be great.

As a result, everyone gets higher accuracy now, especially for bad games. I had games with 20 something accuracy before the change, and when I review the game now, it shows 50 or 60 now.

I am actually surprised that the spike is not bigger in your games, though it makes sense that this would impact novice players more drastically than it affects you.

They did it obviously in order for lower rated people not to feel bad about their games. What it actually did is that it probably increased suspicions of cheating.

https://support.chess.com/en/articles/8708970-how-is-accuracy-in-analysis-determined

There are less people with high 90s now (though of course compared to the amount of other games, those are marginal), and a lot less people below 60.

Or, in other words - everyone is beautiful here.

I ran the accuracy engine on older games at the same time as for the newer games, so it's based on the same engine / process.

ZeroAlphaZero
Eigenartigkeit wrote:
TheJobavaSicillian hat geschrieben:

Also in OTB chess there has been deflation as noted by Eigen, despite the playerbase growth.

A lot of players say that there has been a deflation. I can't tell because I joined a few monts ago. But I noticed that there are people on my level playing 90% accuracy on a regular basis. It might also be a cheating problem. If a big percentage cheats, then the non-cheaters will lose rating by force.

I don't think it is mainly because of cheating. People just improve very quickly over time because of playing with engines and watching Youtube videos. Many people of the range 1000 to 1400 know at least the first 5 to 10 computer moves of every common openings. A couple of years ago, I could at least win some games doing fried liver. If I play fried liver, I will be punished every time I play it. Chess is really a game of memory and your psychological state. It is like music. You memorize patterns and you play patterns. People with bad memories always have disadvantages.

Rarofra

I think there was an inflation. I don't study chess since 2017 and just casually playing my top rating went from 18xx to 20xx. Also the top rated players from the server weren't so high as 32xx some years ago.

BigChessplayer665
Rarofra wrote:

I think there was an inflation. I don't study chess since 2017 and just casually playing my top rating went from 18xx to 20xx. Also the top rated players from the server weren't so high as 32xx some years ago.

Actually more players joining a pool tends to cause deflation at lower levels the average now is around 600 something but it used to be higher (at least deflation accures mostly at lower levels )

JuhoNieminen

Year 2020 I was 800-900 blitz. If I now make a Game Analysis on those old games, the analysis confirms that today's ratings for those games are 550-750 for both players. The games at 800 level are way tougher today.

magipi
JuhoNieminen wrote:

Year 2020 I was 800-900 blitz. If I now make a Game Analysis on those old games, the analysis confirms that today's ratings for those games are 550-750 for both players.

It "confirms" nothing. Those estimates are wildly inaccurate and are usually all over the place. You can call that feature "experimental", but I prefer to call it "trash".

JuhoNieminen

It does not matter if the analysis is trash or not. That trash analysis shows that games of 2021 were less accurate that games of 2025, when the rating of the player pool is the same. The trash analysis is just a measuring stick.

GrunfeldSlam

Blitz Rating Deflation:

May 3, 2025: 98.6 percentile = 1836 rating.

May 12, 2025: 98.6 percentile= 1722 rating.

JimLake1
This is just simply wrong. The number of players at a given rating increase as the player population increases but the portion of players at different ratings (should) stay around the same.
GrunfeldSlam

98.6 Percentile was the percentile for the following ratings on these dates:

 

1850: 8/11/2024

1843: 2/4/2025

1836: 5/3/2025

1722: 5/12/2025

 

It was drifting downward very slowly, but on May 9th there was an abrupt change. On my first game of that day, I noticed that my rating went down from 1771 to 1764, but my percentile went up from 98.5 to 99.1, and also, my global rank went from 142,043 to 80,794. (the implied total population remained steady at about 8.9 million.)

BigChessplayer665
JimLake1 wrote:
This is just simply wrong. The number of players at a given rating increase as the player population increases but the portion of players at different ratings (should) stay around the same.

No statistically it has decreased overtime the average used to be 800 its now like 500 or 600

techwiz911
GrunfeldSlam wrote:

98.6 Percentile was the percentile for the following ratings on these dates:

 

1850: 8/11/2024

1843: 2/4/2025

1836: 5/3/2025

1722: 5/12/2025

 

It was drifting downward very slowly, but on May 9th there was an abrupt change. On my first game of that day, I noticed that my rating went down from 1771 to 1764, but my percentile went up from 98.5 to 99.1, and also, my global rank went from 142,043 to 80,794. (the implied total population remained steady at about 8.9 million.)

This makes sense but why am I 98.6% percentile at 1601 rapid rating? Thats way lower than the 1722 you are saying. Is it because a lot of cheaters got banned or what? I gained like +500 rating in the last month so I have doubts there is rating deflation ongoing. Might just be stats error or something else entirely.

GrunfeldSlam

@ Techwiz911: That's a great question. The Blitz and Rapid ratings mostly don't line up with each other. This is due to the Blitz rating having a greater standard deviation (fluctuation range) than Rapid. Blitz are shorter games with more mistakes, due to the shorter time of the game. Thus, it is a greater probability for a blitz game to not truly reflect your skill level (especially if you're on "tilt"!). Notice the high end of the Blitz range (Nakamura/Carlsen) is hundreds of points higher than the high end of the Rapid Range.

If Chess.com wanted to attempt to make Blitz and Rapid ratings to line up with each other, (which would be difficult at this point), they would need to reduce the number of points lost/gained per game in Blitz compared to Rapid. (right now it's the same). I can't say I know exactly how much it would need to be reduced. It's difficult to say, since within Blitz there is still a significant range of time controls, with and without increments.

On your last point - it is true that this last sharp fluctuation of May 9th is due to some kind of bug in the system (from what I read in a different forum). But it is true that gradual deflation is happening over time, from the data I have examined prior to May 9th.

BigChessplayer665
KmBoor wrote:
ChessAce1111 wrote:
KmBoor wrote:
GrunfeldSlam wrote:

@ Techwiz911: That's a great question. The Blitz and Rapid ratings mostly don't line up with each other. This is due to the Blitz rating having a greater standard deviation (fluctuation range) than Rapid. Blitz are shorter games with more mistakes, due to the shorter time of the game. Thus, it is a greater probability for a blitz game to not truly reflect your skill level (especially if you're on "tilt"!). Notice the high end of the Blitz range (Nakamura/Carlsen) is hundreds of points higher than the high end of the Rapid Range.

If Chess.com wanted to attempt to make Blitz and Rapid ratings to line up with each other, (which would be difficult at this point), they would need to reduce the number of points lost/gained per game in Blitz compared to Rapid. (right now it's the same). I can't say I know exactly how much it would need to be reduced. It's difficult to say, since within Blitz there is still a significant range of time controls, with and without increments.

On your last point - it is true that this last sharp fluctuation of May 9th is due to some kind of bug in the system (from what I read in a different forum). But it is true that gradual deflation is happening over time, from the data I have examined prior to May 9th.

People at higher levels don’t play rapid nearly as often as blitz, that’s generally why the ratings are lower for rapid. Especially titled players, look at how many rapid verse blitz they played in the last 90 days, tons don’t even play rapid at all.

Or maybe they simply have an alt for playing rapid, and don't tell that to everybody.

I guess that could be an option, but I think the majority of people after a certain level prefer blitz/bullet for the fast dopamine hit and less chance of cheating, along with having a larger pool of higher ratings and titled players in the queue.

It's probably the cheating plus the stalling annoys me too much to play rapid frequently