Question ❓

I understand that there are opposite sets of circumstances ; hence my admittance that the extreme isn't my regular standing. But I would wager that the majority of folks here believe the rating system here is inaccurate by a long shot. It just has the feeling to me to be an algorithm designed to keep ya down. And that's not even taking onto account the effect that unfair play (prior to being caught) has on the average players elo or loss/win rate..

Rating is a function of past performance within a playing pool. When the default rating for new accounts was 1200, the rating distribution was different. All that really matters, for the rating system, is that you get a good selection of opponents that are relatively of a similar strength based on their past performance.

If you're 50-55% on win/losses you're likely accurately rated for the pool, though you could be slightly over/under rated in recent play or on tilt or on a streak.

Bot ratings are estimated and often don't match ratings in a given pool. Many at the lower end tend to be overrated. It's pretty hard to make a not that's designed to play the best moves play like a particular rating, especially given that the reasons for a rating can have a lot of different variables.

Bot ratings should be fixed to resemble something reasonable.

Rating estimate that's based on a single game should be just deleted. It's an epic fail, it does much more harm than good.

cause ratings are rigged

Bot ratings are a configuration. The estimate is how the engine is programmed to try and emulate specific rating levels. The site could list one rating and configure a different one but I don't know if there's any tracking to see what rating levels normally win/lose/draw on bots to be able to generate a more realistic value for display.

Bro pls don't be like Janko and Basketstorm

Bots are programmed to always blunder at some point. Higher rating just make the blunders less obvious (usually) and more infrequent.