SHOULD CHESS.COM GIVE OFFICIAL PLAYER RATINGS?

All the high players i seen have won against player within there range at one point or another. Just so u know.

odessea chess, clearly you don't not know how the rating system works, it knows those with a clean slate and so you don't lose so many points, but one thing you are correct on is, you can chose your opponent, and therefore you can be higher than your actual strength, or lower, depending on who you chose to play, 

The trouble with the newer ratings is ur rating can go up or down very fast indeed so u might be playing someone about ur rating in a game and then win 2 games and your rating goes up 200+ points just like that. Take mine for eg; It was 1900+ not so long ago and then due to time outs and couple of good wins i have a 2200+ rating. But my average opponents is lower because some timed out alot and went from 2000+ to 1600 sometimes 1200+.

So dont take it to seriously for a start. Not worth doing ur idea either, i cannot see how that would change anything in the long run, no ratings here can be taken as any serious sign of skills its always changing and nearly always inflated like mine. My OTB rating is only about 1600-1700 ACF. So 2200+ or more is crazy but cool for me too. :)

I would think that the % of people who use assistance is higher at the top level, if only because how many people seriously use assistance and remain at 1400 level.

I don't support any additional rating. They already have the turn-based rating and 3 different live chess ratings.

Meh.

I appreciate your comment. But how do you make of the following games between players with large dispcrepancies in ratings?

1. MainStreet (1805) -vs- Gonnosuke (2685) d/d 03/03/2009 (MainStreet won in just 15 moves!) Gonnosuke obviously made a gross blunder by unnecessarily exposing his Queen to White's rook. MainStreet refused to capture Black's Queen (a gentleman's move) but Gonnosuke resigned nonetheless.

2. siahkal (2130) -vs- bapooya (2486) d/d 06/18/2008 (bapooya won by checkmate in just four moves!) What's perplexing is siahkal who is now among the top 10 players with 2706 rating was mated in just 4 moves! Isn't it hard to believe that a player this good can lose in this manner?

The above examples (both rated games) are the ones diluting the present rating system in chess.com. I'm sure there are many more rated games played that are similar to these. This is the reason I would like to see some changes in the present rating system in this site.

Thanks for your post Odessachess.

You're right in pointing out those two games and indeed such games dilutes the present rating system. However, I beg to disagree that top rated players are just 'feasting' (using my own word) on the 'beatable' lower-rated ones to boost their rating points. But it is possible that some players, once they reached a certain high rating protect it by choosing carefully their opponents.

It's called correspondence chess, and has a long history from telegraphs and the mails to email, and now server.

I use databases, and consequently work much harder while still in book in my games here than I do in OTB. Those that think database use is "lazy" or "not using your brain" have not used databases, or not used them well.

The ICCF awards official correspondence GM titles. In ICCF play, engines are permitted. Earning the GM title with engines running is even harder work than merely using databases.

Here at Chess.com, engine use is cheating. At another site where it is encouraged, I've spent as much as seven hours on intense study on one move.

 I am approaching 2000 so I guess I could soon end up playing some players who are using a chess engine. Maybe their rating is around 2200 but it would be maybe less than 1500 if they were not using the engine. But it doesn't bother me. Whether I am playing someone who is really 2200 or someone who is only achieving that level of play because they are using a chess engine just doesn't matter to me. I am never going to meet the guy, and the net effect is the same:  I am pitching myself against an opponent who is behaving (in terms of their moves) as a 2200 opponent. So in terms of the moves I am facing, they are moves at the 2200 level. Whether these moves are being made by one individual with no assistance, being made by someone using databases, being made by someone who is using an engine, or being made by a group of friends who all discuss the game and make the moves based on a concensus - the effect is the same, since all I ever see are the moves.

Is there anybody else out there with this view?

 With all due respect i think it is wise to ask the players involved. It is possible for players to be cheating yes, but just as possible for other things to have happened. I don't know their story so i would be unwise to make assumptions when i don't know the full story/picture. Should we make a rating for all to have to do because of a few games as these? Is there not enough ratings already?

I'm sure those two games referred to by Odessachess would have different outcomes if they are played in a chess.com sanctioned tournament. I don't like to think there was cheating involved. It could have been just a case of not treating those rated games seriously.

I actually think the rating system in place already reflects a players strength. My ratings have been up and down like a yoyo but overall I think its a true indication of your ability. Sometimes you are in form and other times you are not. Sometimes you play good chess and other times bad chess.

I think two ratings would be pointless, even with an average of both.

My vote is keep the current rating system, and you top dogs can figure some other system out I'm sure.

If it's ain't broke don't fix it.

 my sentiments exactly. 

THEY CANNOT BE OFFICIAL EVER (IN ANY WAY OR IN THE WAY STATED)
why???
and this is where i know that you are just suggesting the name 'official ratings' without the baggage which can be attached to it
... so ... why not???

tournaments more often produce time out results - as they aren't against a regular friend which one plays ... and are therefore probably even less approapriate for measuring a players skill. 'live chess - long games' seem to be the most 'official' means of correspondence chess.

... but yeh maybe a yearly/half yearly tourny which does carry greater importance to rankings

I think chess.com should be allowed by FIDE to award FM or IM titles. :))

I do suspect that something very fishy is happening with many players above 2500. You could see some, for instance, achieving easily a rating above a NM except for quick chess, where they are like 1300 :) Or you could find games between two players rated ~2500 in which both play like 1600-1700. Or you could see this unbelievable game lost by a player who is ~2700 here:

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=7515587

And many other examples can be found if someone would really look into the issues more carefully.

Lmao, no one rated 2400+ would ever fall for that or even move their knight to the outside like that xDD

I like your suggestion - maybe an annual tournament would be interesting to see especially among the top 50 players. That would be a category 15 tournament.

To demonstrate that you're not going to create an account, join a tournament, and then decide to never log in again. Sorry for the time you have to spend against beginners. I did it too, and my FIDE rating is higher than yours. ;-)

This idea is nice, but the problem you are trying to solve will just kill it. 

There is nothing more stopping people from damaging their "official ratings" than the rating they currently have.  People would just sandbag the same because they don't value their points the way you do.

If their is an official tournament with a max rating, official meaning using "official ratings", then people would just sandbag to get the prize.