I played an FM recently who was complete garbage, you can certainly argue that its online so it doesnt matter to people that take OTB seriously.
My score against titled players on chess.com is 2-0 in correspondance chess (team match, so two games with one player). Obviously the guy did not break a sweat as much as I did at the sight of the little red letters.
On the other hand, in blitz, it would be more like 0-5.
I don't mind special privileges, but ratings are corrupted when special privileges include free ratings. Of course, this site has already corrupted the rating system by assigning initial ratings to everyone rather than allowing unrated players to be unrated and let the rating system work it out.
There's something else that goes on here that corrupts ratings. You're intimately familiar with that.
This is just a symptom of the flawed way this site measures new players. A new player isn't 1200, 1500, or 2000. A new player is UNRATED. The rating system should use the results from the first 5 games to give the player the rating he has earned.
Chess.com should quit trying to guess how good players are and allow the rating system to work the way it was intended to work.
This is just a symptom of the flawed way this site measures new players. A new player isn't 1200, 1500, or 2000. A new player is UNRATED. The rating system should use the results from the first 5 games to give the player the rating he has earned.
Chess.com should quit trying to guess how good players are and allow the rating system to work the way it was intended to work.
And how should the opponents' ratings be adjusted then?
That's the point! They wouldn't get adjusted at all. The rating system works best when it's allowed to work without people making artificial adjustments.
Giving people an initial rating other than "unrated" is an artificial adjustment.
The only thing I guess is that people may not really like the idea of playing against someone unrated. I mean I'm not sure I would since I don't know if I would be getting a close game. If they start with some rating, even a player who has only played 2 or 3 games I could have at least some idea of how good they were even if it wasn't that accurate.
I certainly wouldnt like it if I was say 1800 and got paired with an " unrated " that had an OTB title . I doubt anyone would . I see nothing wrong with assigning an initial rating to players that may be new to online chess but are obviously strong players who are not new to chess . An OTB IM , GM, FM etc should NOT have to start at 1200 ... thats just silly . I did start at 1200 here however .
Hmm , this is an internet chess site 
, i don't think there's anything wrong with unrated as well as rated or even titled players starting equally at 1200 
, though that can be a pain 
, i think that if you're rated 2000+ in OTB you won't have a problem getting there here 
.
On another site, a person is unrated for one game. That's it. Compare that to the number of games a USCF expert is severely under-rated on this site due to starting at an artificial point of 1200.
I know I was subject to quite a bit of verbal abuse from my unfortunate opponents early on here. One even pointed out that the average rating of my opponents early on were under 1400, as if I were intentionally beating up on fish. The higher rated players wouldn't play someone with a low rating.
Unrated for one game sounds too short to me. It is 10 games for FIDE, IIRC.
After one event you get a provisional rating. Whether that provisional rating is displayed or not depends on the organization. Since the rating is extremely soft, many organizations don't show provisional ratings until at least four games have been played.
Fair enough, they could give you a rating and then it could indicate that it's provisional somewhere in the display. Then again, it's easy to tell if someone is "provisional" manually by seeing how many games they played.
"I know I was subject to quite a bit of verbal abuse from my unfortunate opponents early on here. One even pointed out that the average rating of my opponents early on were under 1400, as if I were intentionally beating up on fish. The higher rated players wouldn't play someone with a low rating."
Well if you had those experiences I can't argue against that, but this kind of thing seems much more likely in theory than in practice, and it certainly didn't happen in my case. As you strive to get your rating higher, average rating of opponents should even out -- if you play 500 games, those first 10 or so aren't going to be noticed.
Pffft maybe it actually would be better if ratings were assigned after 10 provisional games against random opponents rated no less than 1200 but not exceeding 1800 , but then again it could be worse 
LOL.
After one event you get a provisional rating. Whether that provisional rating is displayed or not depends on the organization. Since the rating is extremely soft, many organizations don't show provisional ratings until at least four games have been played.
But does the provisional rating affect your opponent's rating after the match?
If I remember correctly, it doesn't..
What I Learned is this:
Titled players automatically have their rating start at 2000, and get free diamond membership.
What I Learned is this:
Titled players automatically have their rating start at 2000, and get free diamond membership.
This is simply not true , I started at 1200 .
What I Learned is this:
Titled players automatically have their rating start at 2000, and get free diamond membership.
This is simply not true , I started at 1200 .
Really? That's not what I've heard.
Yes there is nothing like real over the board chess :) The stakes are totally different honestly, not just the money but probably also the fact that you have a real opponent sitting in front of you.