whats 'rd'?
But anyway, the rating system is the same as fide, isnt it? I think it is pretty accurate. You cant just improve all of a sudden by a huge amount. You cant just say you're too good for this rating when you cant get out of that particular rating if you continuously get beaten by people with the same rating.
Chess.com uses glicko, just like every internet site.
The rating system SHOULD follow you up slowly. It is much much more accurate this way. Fast changes would not be accurate at all. A good day, your ratings would shoot up, a bad day, they would drop quickly. They need to be steady and allows for good/bad streaks.
it should be understood that i am now consistantly beating people rated higher than myself, but isn't what is important. for those who do not understand how the glicko system works, please do not comment on this. without an rd threshold, if i play a lot of games in one day, my rd will fall considerablely, and my rating will changed ever slower, regardless of the fact that i am consistantly beating people rated higher than myself.
secondly, what i am suggesting is not a huge difference. with a RD of 50, that would mean your range is plus or minus 100 from the rating shown. lets be honest, trying to be more specific than that isn't really effective. and it still would not lead to huge changes at a time. it would just feel less slugish. those playing in a fairly consistant manner would still maintain a fairly consistant rating trend.
it should be understood that i am now consistantly beating people rated higher than myself, but isn't what is important. for those who do not understand how the glicko system works, please do not comment on this. without an rd threshold, if i play a lot of games in one day, my rd will fall considerablely, and my rating will changed ever slower, regardless of the fact that i am consistantly beating people rated higher than myself.
secondly, what i am suggesting is not a huge difference. with a RD of 50, that would mean your range is plus or minus 100 from the rating shown. lets be honest, trying to be more specific than that isn't really effective. and it still would not lead to huge changes at a time. it would just feel less slugish. those playing in a fairly consistant manner would still maintain a fairly consistant rating trend.
Dude, that's like being a newbie every single day at chess.com
100? That's way higher than the max amount of points you win (if you're not new and played for a long time), around 75.
As a newbie, you get 100 points each time you win, and then the rating spikes start decreasing, until you have to play roughly 15 games to win 100 points. If you're feeling sluggish, you should consider asking them for at the most, 1-5 extra points. Or just crush those high rated players in blitz and risk being called a cheater, but whatever.
if i play a lot of games in one day, my rd will fall considerablely, and my rating will changed ever slower,
If you are playing regularaly, your RD is hardly ever going to change.
Also, according to your stats, you are losing more than you are winning and, just yesterday, only 3 of the games you won were against higher rated players and all of them were barely higher rated than you. So perhaps this perception that you should be much higher rated may be a bit flawed as well as your understanding about how the Glicko formula really works.
it should be understood that i am now consistantly beating people rated higher than myself, but isn't what is important. for those who do not understand how the glicko system works, please do not comment on this. without an rd threshold, if i play a lot of games in one day, my rd will fall considerablely, and my rating will changed ever slower, regardless of the fact that i am consistantly beating people rated higher than myself.
secondly, what i am suggesting is not a huge difference. with a RD of 50, that would mean your range is plus or minus 100 from the rating shown. lets be honest, trying to be more specific than that isn't really effective. and it still would not lead to huge changes at a time. it would just feel less slugish. those playing in a fairly consistant manner would still maintain a fairly consistant rating trend.
Dude, that's like being a newbie every single day at chess.com
100? That's way higher than the max amount of points you win (if you're not new and played for a long time), around 75.
As a newbie, you get 100 points each time you win, and then the rating spikes start decreasing, until you have to play roughly 15 games to win 100 points. If you're feeling sluggish, you should consider asking them for at the most, 1-5 extra points. Or just crush those high rated players in blitz and risk being called a cheater, but whatever.
you obviously do not understand how rating system works. an RD of 50 is not how much the rating changes per game. it represents how sure they are that your rating is accurate. the lower the RD, the more precise your rating. and RD of 50 means that they are sure your "Real" rating is within 100 + or - of the rating they have for you. a player who has never played before would have an RD of 350. so yeah, big difference.
if i play a lot of games in one day, my rd will fall considerablely, and my rating will changed ever slower,
If you are playing regularaly, your RD is hardly ever going to change.
Also, according to your stats, you are losing more than you are winning and, just yesterday, only 3 of the games you won were against higher rated players and all of them were barely higher rated than you. So perhaps this perception that you should be much higher rated may be a bit flawed as well as your understanding about how the Glicko formula really works.
1, i did not say i should be "much higher rated"
2, you can't look at my overall win loss ratio to determine it, you would have to look at my win loss ratio for a specific time period, and lately, i have been winning more than losing.
3, i didn't play many games at all yesterday, but i don't know the exact number. so if you are going to spit stats, give ALL the relevent stats so that people can view them in context.
thank you.
My point was just that if you were indeed winning regularly against much stronger opponents, your rating would go up. But you aren't, so it isn't.
I am, and it is, albeit slowly. besides, the change would not make the huge difference you guys seem to think it would.
I have done some research into it, and I think that chess.com needs to set an rd threshold of about 40 or 50. I know that can lead to more variation where maybe there shouldn't be, but I have a very low rd and I have recently improved a lot, and I feel like my ratings are dragging up behind my skill level. a higher rd threshold would mean ratings could change faster to more accurately follow changes in skill.