huge rating jump

Sort:
monitor
Scottrf wrote:

The thing is, it's the wrong goal.

Ratings are designed to compare you across the pool they are for. They aren't designed to compare with other ratings or pools of players.

They are making them less accurate for their purpose so they can be more closely aligned with another pool.

That is a temporary concern. The rating pool will regain its accuracy to itself in short measure after games are played.

DrCheckevertim

The claim is that when people start playing each other, the ratings will normalize, but the overall pool will be a few hundred points higher. Are they wrong?

edit: monitor posted

bigpoison

Do you think they would have been adjusted downwards to be more closely aligned with FIDE or USCF?  I don't.

kingforaday100

my rating jumped 158 between games.....just like to know if this is the new normal or if it's an aberration that will be corrected!!....anybody connected with chess.com support looking into this??  

DrCheckevertim

it's abnormal, you must have made a very strong checkmate.

Scottrf
monitor wrote:
Scottrf wrote:

The thing is, it's the wrong goal.

Ratings are designed to compare you across the pool they are for. They aren't designed to compare with other ratings or pools of players.

They are making them less accurate for their purpose so they can be more closely aligned with another pool.

That is a temporary concern. The rating pool will regain its accuracy to itself in short measure after games are played.

Only if everyone plays in the near future. You could play someone well away from their real rating if they only play in a few months time.

Even if it was only a temporary concern, it's been implemented badly (an NM at 2770?!, and a bad scale) and there was no need for any concern at all. Ratings aren't supposed to be compared across player pools.

You also didn't reply to my post when I said that actually you were wrong, standard ratings have never been lower than blitz.

monitor
kingforaday100 wrote:

my rating jumped 158 between games.....just like to know if this is the new normal or if it's an aberration that will be corrected!!....anybody connected with chess.com support looking into this??  

You didn't gain +158 from the game, you had a boost of +150 per http://www.chess.com/forum/view/livechess/standard-ratings-boost and you won a game and gained +8.

monitor
Scottrf wrote:
monitor wrote:
Scottrf wrote:

The thing is, it's the wrong goal.

Ratings are designed to compare you across the pool they are for. They aren't designed to compare with other ratings or pools of players.

They are making them less accurate for their purpose so they can be more closely aligned with another pool.

That is a temporary concern. The rating pool will regain its accuracy to itself in short measure after games are played.

Only if everyone plays in the near future. You could play someone well away from their real rating if they only play in a few months time.

Even if it was only a temporary concern, it's been implemented badly (an NM at 2770?!, and a bad scale) and there was no need for any concern at all. Ratings aren't supposed to be compared across player pools.

You also didn't reply to my post when I said that actually you were wrong, standard ratings have never been lower than blitz.

If people don't play in the pool in the near future then they won't affect the pools at all, and a small number of already boosted players playing a year from now won't change anything.

NM JMB2010 was one of the highest rated players on the site with only 2270 and he has a provisional rating, nothing has changed in this regard to his position in the rankings in standard.

Standard ratings have always been cripplingly lower than blitz ratings on the high-end scale (1600+) and slightly lower on the low-end scale (100-1600), the highest legitimate rating ever recorded for a player with more than 10 rated games was IM mat_kolosowski with 2208.

DrCheckevertim

So are you gonna fix the blitz pool??

I think 1600 USCF players are between 1200-1300 blitz.

Scottrf

They will affect anyone who plays them when they return...

Average blitz: 1,087

Average standard: 1,157.

After this blitz will be around 200 lower.

monitor
DrCheckevertim wrote:

So are you gonna fix the blitz pool??

I think 1600 USCF players are between 1200-1300 blitz.

No, we're not trying to approximate USCF, we just want our rating systems to be equal enough to each other to make sense. So that there's not a 400 point discrepancy between ratings from standard to blitz.

DiogenesDue
monitor wrote:
DrCheckevertim wrote:

So are you gonna fix the blitz pool??

I think 1600 USCF players are between 1200-1300 blitz.

No, we're not trying to approximate USCF, we just want our rating systems to be equal enough to each other to make sense. So that there's not a 400 point discrepancy between ratings from standard to blitz.

Actually, you just gave me exactly a 403 point discrepancy between standard and blitz ;).

(to be fair, I almost always use blitz/bullet games to experiment and mess around with inferior openings...)

Zigwurst

My rating stayed at 1655...

monitor
btickler wrote:
monitor wrote:
DrCheckevertim wrote:

So are you gonna fix the blitz pool??

I think 1600 USCF players are between 1200-1300 blitz.

No, we're not trying to approximate USCF, we just want our rating systems to be equal enough to each other to make sense. So that there's not a 400 point discrepancy between ratings from standard to blitz.

Actually, you just gave me exactly a 403 point discrepancy between standard and blitz ;).

(to be fair, I almost always use blitz/bullet games to experiment and mess around with inferior openings...)

The theory is that if you play more games that should even out :)

RobinHood75
DrCheckevertim wrote:

So are you gonna fix the blitz pool??

I think 1600 USCF players are between 1200-1300 blitz.

Why so? For most of us, our blitz rating isn't that far of our real rating (FIDE, not USCF which is way weaker).

EricFleet

Myvsatandard went up 300 points. Interestingly enough my standard was already 100 points higher than my blitz. In blitz I am always in deep time trouble.

Scottrf
EricFleet wrote:

Myvsatandard went up 300 points. Interestingly enough my standard was already 100 points higher than my blitz. In blitz I am always in deep time trouble.

That will be common. Blitz were lower in general than standard, but there aren't enough players at the top end playing standard chess, so it topped out lower. To compensate they've increased the numbers but it doesn't address the problem.

fancyknightmaneuvers

2500 now AW YEAH!!!!!

VULPES_VULPES
fancyknightmaneuvers wrote:

2500 now AW YEAH!!!!!

oh great...

DrCheckevertim
monitor wrote:
DrCheckevertim wrote:

So are you gonna fix the blitz pool??

I think 1600 USCF players are between 1200-1300 blitz.

No, we're not trying to approximate USCF, we just want our rating systems to be equal enough to each other to make sense. So that there's not a 400 point discrepancy between ratings from standard to blitz.

Oh.. I think standard will be even further from blitz now, at least below 2000. Foot in Mouth