Every time when I had a chat with friends, they leave chess.com cos there are full of cheaters and so their rating become lower, so their leave this site. It is like marketing, if the competitors do unrealistic discounts ( unrealistic rating for chess players), then this site should do the same, otherwise the customers will leave.
Or, you know, friends might talk and say "I'm 1500" and the other one says "me too" and then it's "yeah, but you're 1500 on ____ site, that's like a beginner, I'm talking 1500 on chess.com!"
So then it's, oh damn, I better go to chess.com, because that's the rating I can brag about.
It's very simple to stop cheating. Chess.com could solve this problem. Give everyone a 3000 rating. You can never go above 3000. However, you can lose rating points. So if you play someone 3000 nothing happens. If you play someone 2500, then your rating goes down. In order for someone to "cheat" they would intentionally have to have a much lower rating to make the effect of losing greater. This doesn't happen in the current system. Currently, people have an incentive to cheat to get better. However, they will have to lose first, which goes against their cheating conditioning.
blah blah blah. Your whole post is stupid, and I only read 2 sentences of it.
Oh, I see, your account is 3 days old.
Every time when I had a chat with friends, they leave chess.com cos there are full of cheaters and so their rating become lower, so their leave this site. It is like marketing, if the competitors do unrealistic discounts ( unrealistic rating for chess players), then this site should do the same, otherwise the customers will leave.
as far as im concerned, ur 4000. i hope that makes u happy.
Well, I am not complainting my rating! I am just giving my opinion "why 1200 people generally feel that this site has more cheaters !!
I like the superior feeling that comes with being lower rated than the pieces of crap at lichess.org and still being stronger.
Base ratings haven't been 1200 for everyone since the new site became the default. There are 5 starting rating levels, from 400 to 1800.
That said, ratings across different pools don't need to be similar. Ratings should provide a way for players to gauge their strength within a given pool and make it possible for pairing players of similar abilities, depending on seek settings, of course.
yeah it might help some with the ego-based cheaters that are 800's thinking they should be 1600
Chess.com should do away with base ratings entirely. The rating system created by Elo and improved by others that chess.com uses is designed to have a player be UNRATED for the first few (originally 4) games, then provisionally rated, and only after enough games have been played, a player earns an established rating.
Actually the paper introducing the Glicko system states "If the player is unrated, set the rating to 1500 and the RD to 350." as does the paper for the Glicko2 system. http://www.glicko.net/glicko.html But some sites don't chose to follow that.
Chess.com should do away with base ratings entirely. The rating system created by Elo and improved by others that chess.com uses is designed to have a player be UNRATED for the first few (originally 4) games, then provisionally rated, and only after enough games have been played, a player earns an established rating.
That works well for events, such as an OTB tourney where all games can get rated at once but not quite as well for a site where the games are rated immediately.
Chess.com should do away with base ratings entirely. The rating system created by Elo and improved by others that chess.com uses is designed to have a player be UNRATED for the first few (originally 4) games, then provisionally rated, and only after enough games have been played, a player earns an established rating.
That's such a great idea. It's not as if something like this would be hard to program.
I don't see what the big deal is, if the persons true strength is higher then the 1200 starting then it should not be difficult for them to get to there accurate level by playing, I for one am happy to start at 1200 and work my way up
@MartinStahl, I'm not reinventing the wheel. Other sites start players as unrated, and I don't see anyone complaining.
I don't see what the big deal is, if the persons true strength is higher then the 1200 starting then it should not be difficult for them to get to there accurate level by playing, I for one am happy to start at 1200 and work my way up
This. While it may be annoying in the beginning, anyone truly worth more than 1200 should be able to play up to their true strength without too much trouble.
Cheating is nowhere near as common at that level as people seem to complain. Any cheater still rated 1200 or so is a really, really, really bad cheater. Half the complaints online I see about cheating are some form of "I am better than that guy so he clearly cheated" or "this guy's skill level suddenly increased/decrease between this move/game and this move/game!!!!!!111DETECTIVEBANHAMMER"
As a general fact, chess.com rating is about 300-400 elo lower than the other sites because chess.com base rating start with 1200 wherease other sites start with 1500-1600 . So what happen next? People who have 1500-1600 in other sites always get around 1200 in this site. So they cant believe that their 1200 opponents in here are as strong as 1500,1600 in other sites.
So people feel the opponents are cheating. And everyday people complaints of cheating. If chess.com raise their base rating to 1600, people will feel the same rating like other sites and they wont complain anymore.
Sound good?