ratings

i grew up in chess with the e.l.o. system and our system the gliko is unfair for improving players.  it makes it near impossible to raise your rating by more than a handful of points---in the explaination it explains that once you hit a certain leval that is your top possible and if you win more you get less points---duh--who decided this method--lets go back to the elo

thats one person lets go everybody---back to playing for 32 or 16 pts and being rewarded for winning

I'll bake cookies!

@OP: I might misunderstand you. As far as I know, gaining points within the Glicko rating system is no harder than in the Elo system. The fluctuation of points, whether gaining or losing, seems to be to a greater magnitude in Glicko than Elo. I also know of no ceiling within the Glicko system, except where basic (non-paying) members of this site are concerned. Basic members can attain a maximum rating of 2400, but since you are a Gold member, you may exceed this.

Also, just for information: Elo is not an acronym, but simply a name. It is named after Arpad Elo.

if you read about the gliko it uses your past games to determine the number of pts you get for a win---this system is set up to protect a higher rated player from losing a fair amount of points for a loss and dening a lower player to be rewarded for winning against higher players because both of these scenerios are just anomalies in there system

@OP: By "past games," do you mean the quantity of games each player has played?

http://www.chess.com/echess/players.html

right---in elo there is a unrated period---then it ends-----gliko goes on and on

I remember talk of imposing a ceiling of 2400 on basic members. Were these members ratings allowed to remain, since they occurred before the fact, or has that ceiling never come to fruition?

Never saw this. A rating is not a reward for payment it is an estimate of strength.

How can you know your opponents' chess.com strength if there is a ceiling.