If you have three players equally skilled, all rated 1200, and one had only 800 rated opponents, another 1200 rated, the third all 1800 for, say, 100 games, do you think they would have different ratings? I'm wanting to trust that they wouldn't. I also keep wanting to say ELO.
If all are accurately rated and play as well as their rating, then the average rating over 100 games for each player is expected to be 1200.
But a thought experiment like this...
Say 3 players, each 1200. One exclusively plays 1100, one exclusively plays 1200, and last plays only 1300.
Then during each game, we flip a coin for each player (the 1200 and their opponent). Heads their skill level goes up 50 points and tails it goes down 50 points. Over a large number of games the average for each player will be 1200, but the person who only plays 1300s will have the highest peak rating...
... at least this is what I expect. I could write some code to simulate it... this could be a fun blog post I suppose. I'll consider it.
But a thought experiment like this...
Say 3 players, each 1200. One exclusively plays 1100, one exclusively plays 1200, and last plays only 1300.
Then during each game, we flip a coin for each player (the 1200 and their opponent). Heads their skill level goes up 50 points and tails it goes down 50 points. Over a large number of games the average for each player will be 1200, but the person who only plays 1300s will have the highest peak rating...
... at least this is what I expect. I could write some code to simulate it... this could be a fun blog post I suppose. I'll consider it.
If a 1200 flips heads twice in a row, do they go up 100 points? Or does their rating reset to 1200 after every game and can only go up to 1250 and down to 1150?
But a thought experiment like this...
Say 3 players, each 1200. One exclusively plays 1100, one exclusively plays 1200, and last plays only 1300.
Then during each game, we flip a coin for each player (the 1200 and their opponent). Heads their skill level goes up 50 points and tails it goes down 50 points. Over a large number of games the average for each player will be 1200, but the person who only plays 1300s will have the highest peak rating...
... at least this is what I expect. I could write some code to simulate it... this could be a fun blog post I suppose. I'll consider it.
If a 1200 flips heads twice in a row, do they go up 100 points? Or does their rating reset to 1200 after every game and can only go up to 1250 and down to 1150?
Yeah, the coin flip only lasts for that 1 game.
And I wouldn't adjust their rating, only their skill level... in other words a 1200 who is playing like a 1250 (or 1150). And that'd be for the purpose of simulating someone having a good or bad day.
EDIT
Then if they win, and their new rating is 2010 or whatever, then the next coin flip could put them at 1250 or 1150... I have to remember there are 3 ratings to keep track of which makes this a bit annoying 
There's the intrinsic or base level skill (which will be 1200 and never change)
There's the adjusted skill due to having a good or bad day (which will be 1150 or 1250, and will be the one that influences win %).
And then there's the actual rating which is what will go up or down due to a win or loss.
But a thought experiment like this...
Say 3 players, each 1200. One exclusively plays 1100, one exclusively plays 1200, and last plays only 1300.
Then during each game, we flip a coin for each player (the 1200 and their opponent). Heads their skill level goes up 50 points and tails it goes down 50 points. Over a large number of games the average for each player will be 1200, but the person who only plays 1300s will have the highest peak rating...
... at least this is what I expect. I could write some code to simulate it... this could be a fun blog post I suppose. I'll consider it.
If a 1200 flips heads twice in a row, do they go up 100 points? Or does their rating reset to 1200 after every game and can only go up to 1250 and down to 1150?
Yeah, the coin flip only lasts for that 1 game.
And I wouldn't adjust their rating, only their skill level... in other words a 1200 who is playing like a 1250 (or 1150). And that'd be for the purpose of simulating someone having a good or bad day.
EDIT
Then if they win, and their new rating is 2010 or whatever, then the next coin flip could put them at 1250 or 1150... I have to remember there are 3 ratings to keep track of which makes this a bit annoying
There's the intrinsic or base level skill (which will be 1200 and never change)
There's the adjusted skill due to having a good or bad day (which will be 1150 or 1250, and will be the one that influences win %).
And then there's the actual rating which is what will go up or down due to a win or loss.
import java.util.Random;
public class Main
{
public static void main(String[] args) {
Random r = new Random();
int x = 1200; //player who plays 1100
int y = 1200; //player who plays 1200
int z = 1200; //player who plays 1300
int games = 50;
for (int i = 1; i<= games; i++) {
int chance1 = r.nextInt(2);
int chance2 = r.nextInt(100);
//if they play like 1250
if(chance1 == 0) {
if(chance2 <= 57) {
x -= 12;
}
else
x += 20;
}
//if they play like 1150
else {
if(chance2 <= 70) {
x -= 12;
}
else {
x += 20;
}
}
}
//player who plays 1200
for (int i = 1; i<= games; i++) {
int chance1 = r.nextInt(2);
int chance2 = r.nextInt(100);
//if they play like 1250
if(chance1 == 0) {
if(chance2 <= 57) {
y+= 16;
}
else
y -= 16;
}
//if they play like 1150
else {
if(chance2 <= 43) {
y += 16;
}
else {
y -= 16;
}
}
}
//player who plays 1100
for (int i = 1; i<= games; i++) {
int chance1 = r.nextInt(2);
int chance2 = r.nextInt(100);
//if they play like 1250
if(chance1 == 0) {
if(chance2 <= 70) {
z += 12;
}
else
y -= 20;
}
//if they play like 1150
else {
if(chance2 <= 57) {
z += 12;
}
else {
z -= 20;
}
}
}
System.out.println("New rating of player who played 1300: " + x);
System.out.println("New rating of player who played 1200: " + y);
System.out.println("New rating of player who played 1100: " + z);
}
}
This might not be 100% correct since I spent 5 minutes doing this but after 50 games, the player who played the 1100 the most gains the most points.
https://www.mark-weeks.com/aboutcom/aa04l04.htm
Whoops, line 74 is wrong. Should be z -= 20 instead. I also should've initialized i as 0 instead of 1 but that shouldn't really matter. Comments are also wrong. Should be:
int x = 1200; //player who plays 1300
int y = 1200; //player who plays 1200
int z = 1200; //player who plays 1100
Its also interesting you say John Bartholomew started the idea. Because I have never seen him smurf in rated matches. What he does is choose his rating range, as described in this thread. Bu8t he only does it in casual matches. At least in all of his streams that I watched. And he uses his real account. So in his case, there is nothing wrong with that and its respectable. And his streams truly are educational. They are not teaching kids how to manipulate ratings like Naroditsky and HIkaru. The guy usually has actual lesson plans and plays as best as he can accordingly on the board. His 5 part beginner serious is pretty legendary.
And the majority of people would be upset at having to play against a speedrunning GM. I don't know in what world you think most unsuspecting players would not be. Its simply not sporting and it encourages rating manipulation. There is a reason they are playing anonymously.
In the climbing the rating ladder series he would choose a rating range. The opponent could have chosen rated or unrated. But he was playing rated games if they wanted to.
If you look at his regular chess series, those were rated games. 15 minute rated. He even began the series by saying and I quote, I'm putting my mighty 23xx rating on the line. There was virtually no one with a rating as high so he played players from 1100 to 18 or 1900 on average. Occasionally hitting some people around 2000 to 2100 but there just weren't that many in the pool.
Nowadays he does challenges rated or unrated but it is all 3 minute Blitz and it's got nothing to do with any educational value. You just get to play a high rated player just like all other streams.
And the majority of people would be upset at having to play against a speedrunning GM. I don't know in what world you think most unsuspecting players would not be. Its simply not sporting and it encourages rating manipulation. There is a reason they are playing anonymously.
If you play one of those accounts the points you lose if you lose, are refunded. How does that have anything to do with ratings? The only thing you can do is win the game, typically by cheating, and then you get to keep the points provided you don't get caught cheating. They don't take away points you in, they just give back any points you might lose. So the only terrible wrong being committed is that the person winning against the speedrunning streamer gains points that they are not supposed to have. At least not by your definition. I guess Daniel's supposed to be upset if he gets beat and loses rating. But he's not.
And the majority of people would be upset at having to play against a speedrunning GM. I don't know in what world you think most unsuspecting players would not be. Its simply not sporting and it encourages rating manipulation. There is a reason they are playing anonymously.
If you play one of those accounts the points you lose if you lose, are refunded. How does that have anything to do with ratings? The only thing you can do is win the game, typically by cheating, and then you get to keep the points provided you don't get caught cheating. They don't take away points you in, they just give back any points you might lose. So the only terrible wrong being committed is that the person winning against the speedrunning streamer gains points that they are not supposed to have. At least not by your definition. I guess Daniel's supposed to be upset if he gets beat and loses rating. But he's not.
me and probably everyone else would love a chance to play a GM
Ok, I did a blog about setting your seeks and how it affects your rating.
https://www.chess.com/blog/llama36/maximize-your-rating-with-this-setting
But a thought experiment like this...
Say 3 players, each 1200. One exclusively plays 1100, one exclusively plays 1200, and last plays only 1300.
Then during each game, we flip a coin for each player (the 1200 and their opponent). Heads their skill level goes up 50 points and tails it goes down 50 points. Over a large number of games the average for each player will be 1200, but the person who only plays 1300s will have the highest peak rating...
... at least this is what I expect. I could write some code to simulate it... this could be a fun blog post I suppose. I'll consider it.
If a 1200 flips heads twice in a row, do they go up 100 points? Or does their rating reset to 1200 after every game and can only go up to 1250 and down to 1150?
Yeah, the coin flip only lasts for that 1 game.
And I wouldn't adjust their rating, only their skill level... in other words a 1200 who is playing like a 1250 (or 1150). And that'd be for the purpose of simulating someone having a good or bad day.
EDIT
Then if they win, and their new rating is 2010 or whatever, then the next coin flip could put them at 1250 or 1150... I have to remember there are 3 ratings to keep track of which makes this a bit annoying
There's the intrinsic or base level skill (which will be 1200 and never change)
There's the adjusted skill due to having a good or bad day (which will be 1150 or 1250, and will be the one that influences win %).
And then there's the actual rating which is what will go up or down due to a win or loss.
import java.util.Random;
public class Main
{
public static void main(String[] args) {
Random r = new Random();
int x = 1200; //player who plays 1100
int y = 1200; //player who plays 1200
int z = 1200; //player who plays 1300
int games = 50;
for (int i = 1; i<= games; i++) {
int chance1 = r.nextInt(2);
int chance2 = r.nextInt(100);
//if they play like 1250
if(chance1 == 0) {
if(chance2 <= 57) {
x -= 12;
}
else
x += 20;
}
//if they play like 1150
else {
if(chance2 <= 70) {
x -= 12;
}
else {
x += 20;
}
}
}
//player who plays 1200
for (int i = 1; i<= games; i++) {
int chance1 = r.nextInt(2);
int chance2 = r.nextInt(100);
//if they play like 1250
if(chance1 == 0) {
if(chance2 <= 57) {
y+= 16;
}
else
y -= 16;
}
//if they play like 1150
else {
if(chance2 <= 43) {
y += 16;
}
else {
y -= 16;
}
}
}
//player who plays 1100
for (int i = 1; i<= games; i++) {
int chance1 = r.nextInt(2);
int chance2 = r.nextInt(100);
//if they play like 1250
if(chance1 == 0) {
if(chance2 <= 70) {
z += 12;
}
else
y -= 20;
}
//if they play like 1150
else {
if(chance2 <= 57) {
z += 12;
}
else {
z -= 20;
}
}
}
System.out.println("New rating of player who played 1300: " + x);
System.out.println("New rating of player who played 1200: " + y);
System.out.println("New rating of player who played 1100: " + z);
}
}
Set i to 5000 and see what happens
When you update ratings by a fixed amount (and under the conditions of this code), all ratings either increase forever or decrease forever.
you won't always though lol and that is the point.
If everyone sets their seeks to -50 +inf... Then we will all get paired with people within 50 rating points. This is the worst case scenario, according to OP: everyone tries to leech off the system.
Well, in the end... the result does not seem to be that dramatic, does it?
I might believe you if you were playing 30 min games on lichess.
What?
They won't always bud. If that was the case this thread wouldn't exist! lol
And I would believe you have long Que times if playing 30 mins on lichess. Not on chess.com. And as I said, that should be left up to chess.com's discretion. Not the players.
They won't always... what?
And what does lichess have to do with anything? Why would it be different on lichess and how does that relate to the OP?
And it's queue.
First of all, not everyone has their settings set to that. And users should NOT be allowed to change those settings for rated games.
I'd believe you might have long time ques if playing 30 min games on lichess. But on chess.com? There are no long wait times no matter what time control you select. And as I said, that should be up to chess.coms discretion how long the qeues should be and if they should pair you with someone out of your rating range. Not the players.
I will say that at the 2200+ level (or in @b1zmark's case the 2300 level) there just aren't enough people in the pool for you to always get someone your rating or higher, especially in rapid. That's why most people start farming people below 2200 in my experience... I might start doing so as well it's not immediate pairings (through no fault of chess.com) and if you want a game quickly you usually have to widen your range.
you won't always though lol and that is the point.
If everyone sets their seeks to -50 +inf... Then we will all get paired with people within 50 rating points. This is the worst case scenario, according to OP: everyone tries to leech off the system.
Well, in the end... the result does not seem to be that dramatic, does it?
I might believe you if you were playing 30 min games on lichess.
What?
They won't always bud. If that was the case this thread wouldn't exist! lol
And I would believe you have long Que times if playing 30 mins on lichess. Not on chess.com. And as I said, that should be left up to chess.com's discretion. Not the players.
They won't always... what?
And what does lichess have to do with anything? Why would it be different on lichess and how does that relate to the OP?
And it's queue.
First of all, not everyone has their settings set to that. And users should NOT be allowed to change those settings for rated games.
I'd believe you might have long time ques if playing 30 min games on lichess. But on chess.com? There are no long wait times no matter what time control you select. And as I said, that should be up to chess.coms discretion how long the qeues should be and if they should pair you with someone out of your rating range. Not the players.
I will say that at the 2200+ level (or in @b1zmark's case the 2300 level) there just aren't enough people in the pool for you to always get someone your rating or higher, especially in rapid. That's why most people start farming people below 2200 in my experience... I might start doing so as well it's not immediate pairings (through no fault of chess.com) and if you want a game quickly you usually have to widen your range.
@steven-odonoghue said the same for bullet ratings around 2400 or 2500... you have to wait for games.
I think that's why the really high players (like Hikaru) almost always play lots of rematches.
Rematches, by the way, are a good way to boost your rating for sure... you just have to find someone on tilt who keeps agreeing and you can set a really high peak rating record for yourself.
Set i to 5000 and see what happens
When you update ratings by a fixed amount (and under the conditions of this code), all ratings either increase forever or decrease forever.
Which is to say that mathematically, his contention is correct in the short term. But unfortunately, reality sets in shortly after and as the player gets unwarranted rating increases, he's again playing higher rated players and eventually the game result is less and less likely to end up in his favor. With the alternative being he's really getting better and playing better, and moving the goalposts so to speak. So, again, the rating system does what it's supposed to do with a small short term hiccup present when players attempt to play higher rated opponents all the time. If this is something a person can't live with, wow, they've really got bigger issues.
Your code doesn't account for that scenario (I concede it's intended to be a quick and dirty check). But the only way your findings can be valid is if the player continues to improve, which is the point of playing better players. So if that's the case, again, the system works.
... yes it's a bit silly to say "watch me lose against high rated players, that's how I'll increase my rating" but in practice playing exclusively higher rated players will help boost your rating a bit and I think it's because this is the condition that rewards you the most when you're playing your best, and punishes you the least when you're playing poorly.
Mathematically, this is likely true.
But psychologically, it might not be worth it for some players to play exclusively against higher-rated opponents.
Because this can lead to the most losses. And repeated losses can contribute to tilting.
It's entirely possible that someone changes their seek range to -25/+400, then loses their next 10 games in a row. Oof.
Then, of course, as any sane person would do, they then throw their electronic device against the wall in frustration, breaking it. Thus, the cycle of tilt continues ... 
ah the chaotic posts like these is what makes my day, gotta love the maniac posters
Yes, I know, I use awfully big words for a forum full of 10 year olds, but sometimes someone accidentally posts something worth talking about, and so I talk about it.