Lower Rated Players Are Better
Yes I think it’s generally accepted that your rating would be almost 300 points higher if not for cheaters. A lot of cheaters on here for sure.
Last month, chess.com banned 70k users for cheating. The months past over 110 k a month. So now, chess.com is banning on an average, 40k less a month. It is way out of control and you cann see they DO NOT CARE ANY MORE!
Yes I think it’s generally accepted that your rating would be almost 300 points higher if not for cheaters. A lot of cheaters on here for sure.
So... there's 2 ways that could happen.
First is someone playes cheaters frequently enough that it directly lowers their rating. In this case your rating will be very volatile as there will be periods of recovery vs periods you're playing cheaters. For it not to be volatile, chess.com has to be in on it, or the 2nd way...
Second is that even if you never play a cheater, the total bulk of cheating on the site overall has deflated ratings by removing points from the system (they win games, then are banned, so in a sense those points are deleted).
The first case isn't true because ratings aren't volatile and chess.com isn't ensuring an even mixture of cheats and non-cheaters.
The 2nd case isn't true, or rather, isn't relevant in the first place, because deflation impacts everyone equally. Ratings are always a relative measure, so shifting everyone as a group one way or another isn't important other than aesthetics.
So now, chess.com is banning on an average, 40k less a month.
For it to be an average, you'd want to take values for multiple months, and weight them by total number of users.
You can't just look at 2 data points and say it's going up or down... if fewer people cheat this month than last that has nothing to do with chess.com's cheat detection.
Self fulfilling prophecy. You expect to lose on Sunday so it affects the way you play.
It's that or mental illness, or you're a troll.
So now, chess.com is banning on an average, 40k less a month.
For it to be an average, you'd want to take values for multiple months, and weight them by total number of users.
You can't just look at 2 data points and say it's going up or down... if fewer people cheat this month than last that has nothing to do with chess.com's cheat detection.
This account is new and already 2300+ Was your last account banned for cheating ?
So now, chess.com is banning on an average, 40k less a month.
For it to be an average, you'd want to take values for multiple months, and weight them by total number of users.
You can't just look at 2 data points and say it's going up or down... if fewer people cheat this month than last that has nothing to do with chess.com's cheat detection.
This account is new and already 2300+ Was your last account banned for cheating ?
Does being banned for cheating have anything to do with understanding statistics above a 4th grade level?
The answer to both is "no" by the way.
I've been active on the forum for years and I'm pretty well known so... I don't really have much to say.
Sure new kids wouldn't know me, but your account has been open a year so... well anyway, it doesn't matter.
Inb4thelock and all that.
That question has a really long answer, and I'm not going to post it.
Being suspicious of a new high rated account is normal. You can report me and see if I still exist a few weeks from now. That's how I treat accounts I'm suspicious of.
hello Llama, while I agree with you in general, your first way of explanation has a flaw in the data to support your conclusion.
I think its just when you are playing a higher rated player, you just focus and you play better. However, when you are playing lower rated player, you are more relaxed resulting in worse play. Just a guess