This rating system is RIGGED!

So, today and yesterday, I've been playing many Crazyhouse and Bughouse games. I find them enjoyable. However, something makes no sense to me. After a game is finished, the "Game over" screen says that I have to play 3 more games to get a rating. Now, this doesn't mean that I cannot see my rating in stats or profile, but it means I cannot see it in the game.

But guess what? I've played over 20 games! Why does it keep saying I need to play more to "get a rating"? It's ridiculous!

But there's more than that. After I played Crazyhouse (the first variant I played on this account, I played Bughouse and something happened. Something weird. I signed up with 1600 rating (I am 2000+ blitz on this site in normal chess but the developers are so stubborn and added no "2000" option to signup with) and fell to 1100-1300 Crazyhouse rating (which I am not surprised with because I have not played these variants since I was like a low intermediate player)....

Anyways, I realized that my Bughouse rating had transferred over from my crazyhouse rating and instead of starting at 1600 bughouse, I started with 1302 rating transferred over.

What the heck? Ridiculous.

And two months ago, I had another account where I was 2000 bullet and then after playing my first rated blitz game on it, my bullet rating transferring and the winning of tthe first game sent me up to 2200 blitz! More absurdity!

Also, whenever I see the profile of someone under 2000, there's always a high chance that the rapid rating is much higher than the others. 1800 rapid is like 1400 otb and 1500 blitz now. Despite blitz being further from classical than rapid, the ratings are closer to 90+30 chess than 10+0.

And one last thing...

When a person has gone on a hiatus of chess play, they end up with a much higher rating deviation once they play again.

So, please explain to me... In what parallel universe is this system the invention of a sane person?

@1

"I've played over 20 games" ++ Maybe some unrated?

"instead of starting at 1600 bughouse, I started with 1302 rating transferred over"
++ Makes sense: 1302 is based on your performance in a different variant, 1600 is based on nothing. Do not worry, as you play more the rating will go up or down and adjust.

"I had another account where I was 2000 bullet and then after playing my first rated blitz game on it, my bullet rating transferring and the winning of tthe first game sent me up to 2200 blitz!" ++ That is a provisional rating. It goes up or down as you play more.

"When a person has gone on a hiatus of chess play, they end up with a much higher rating deviation once they play again." ++ That is logical. After a hyatus the rating is less certain and thus should be adjusted more according to results.

"is this system the invention of a sane person?" ++ Yes, Professor Mark E. Glickman

@tygxc

They aren't unrated, see for yourself.

And don't care, I signed up with with 1600 starting ratings. I expected my ratings to all start at 1600.

As for your third response, if one of the time controls no longer had provisional rating, the others shouldn't as well. That's what I think should happen.

As for your reasoning of higher rating deviation after inactivity being "logical", have you ever considered the option that maybe the person has just not changed in strength after a while of chess.com inactivity?

Oh, and nice to know that Mark Glickman was an insane person who made his Glicko-2 system so ridiculous.

Bump.

Well, but then what would be the problem?

Say this person is 1500 skill level, and their account is 1500-rated, and let's assume they're only playing opponent's their own strength.

If they lose the first game, they'd maybe fall down to 1400. But then they'd likely win and go up to 1480 or so. So their rating would still be close to their skill level after only a couple of games.

If you propose a system with a constant RD, then that would do a worse job in matching actual playing strengths. Because over hundreds of thousands of players on chess.com who they haven't played for years and then return, most of them come back with significantly different chess skill.

In any case, there is a trick so you don't have to worry about any of this: Play more games! When you've played 20-100 games in the last months in the given time control / variant, your rating will be very accurate, no matter at what rating and RD you started.

@R_Doofus

The problem? It's unfair to give others a higher rating deviation because then they'd gain more points per win than most. Especially if the person went inactive in only one time control and their strength is barely changed. The rating deviation goes up after only 2-3 months of inactivity. Ridiculous to give a higher rating deviation after that little time.

And so what if it takes a bunch of games to get to your increased new strength? I'm sure a person won't really mind if it does.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/68859257361 Black gained 155 points from beating a 300 after a few years of inactivity. See a problem?

@Doves-creek

Why do you think so?

@Doves-creek wrote:

not for me but my account

Why?

Okay.

It's no fun for either side to play against people who are mismatched. If a 1000 comes back with 1500 strength and only wins 8 points per game because of the constant RD you suggested, they'd have about 50 games where they're the clear favorite.

That looks like a bug. Even with the highest RD ever the change should be like 5 points at most for such a huge rating disparity.

But how does it impact you? Again, you can simply avoid this problem by playing a lot of games in the given time control & variant.

It's no fun for either side to play against people who are mismatched. If a 1000 comes back with 1500 strength and only wins 8 points per game because of the constant RD you suggested, they'd have about 50 games where they're the clear favorite.

This happened to me. I was busy grinding blitz, then switched back to rapid and went from 1000 to 1500. I didn't mind that it took me a month to reach my real strength.

But how does it impact you?

Because it's not fair. If a person has reached a normal rating deviation after playing their first 50 games (or whatever the number of games it takes), their rating deviation should stay normal all the time.

That looks like a bug.

Last rapid game he played was 10 years ago, so no.

I remember seeing other accounts that haven't played a specific time control in like 2-3 years, they end up losing or gaining around 100 points per win or loss.

Let's hope so.

You certainly work hard with all this crazy spamming, you deserve to get your wish and get muted.

Arnt you acting like a man baby yelling about it 🤔

Hikaru obviously

@Doves-creek

my account is still up!!!

And you've just indirectly publicly revealed what happened to your previous account. Good job.

no one asked. womp womp.💀

You contradict yourself by posting five unnecessary comments in a row with no one asked or cares about. Not to mention that this is a public forum and everyone gets free speech.

So what happened ?

Hey @Doves-creek, how about you talk about something relevant rather than arguing, huh? You've just taken over the entire post and contributed to nothing!

@BigChessplayer665

It's obvious why he's happy that his current account is still open. He's worried about chess.com finding him.