the rating of a player can increase and decrease depends on how many games they win and lose and the higher accuracy a person play, the greater chance they can win and that lifts their rating. Remember, consistency also matters, if a player got 99 accuracy (meaning that they played a 'masterpiece') doesn't mean that they should be a grandmaster, they could play 33 accuracy for all the other games as well. Lastly, elo doesn't define how good you are, it just helps you to find a player similarly skilled as you. I think that at most your elo should inflate and deflate based on your accuracy ( . 90 accuracy = + 5 more point 33 accuracy = -2 points etc)
is Rating overrated in Chess ?
Sort:
Let me put it another way.
There is a near perfect game between two 2800 rated players but it a bland and boring 50 moves draw.
Whereas there is another game between two 2400 rated players which is full of lively action, with its set of inaccuracies from both side and is also a 50 move draw.
Most of the people will ignore the drawn game between 2400 players but will remember the one that is between 2800s.
This I consider as a problem.
Great Software Professional Organizations create Useful Software for common people.
Great Musicians create memorable Masterpieces.
Same way, Great Chess Players should be known by the quality of games they play. The great thoughts and ideas that is refreshing and enjoyable.
But we often evaluate greatness of a player with their rating. This limited thinking mindset of measuring greatness through the yardstick of rating, is very much pointer of lack of thinking mindset.
Do you agree? If not, Why?