Rating Deflation History?

Hello all!

I have had some interesting experiences regarding rating fluxation in live chess, specifically my bullet rating.

Now, I want to first state that all though I do go through spurts of chess interest, I would definitely say my game is consistently improving.

I've been a member here for a little over 3 years. Mostly i play live chess, I've played exactly 3,554 bullet games. (almost all of which are 1 minute games)

Now get this, my rating now is 1699. where it's stayed for the past year or so.

I am 16 now, I believe myself to be significantly better than I was at 13 and 3 months when I joined.

But when I was 14 and 2 months my bullet rating was 1984 (Mar 20, 2011) I know this from my home page.

1984! That is really high! Nowadays if I play anyone 1800 I'm likely to get slaughtered.

I believe there are a few CM's who barely stay over 2000, only 16 points above me as a 14 year old.

Anyway! All this to say: "Has anyone had this kind of thing happen to them? My only answer is that chess.com's ratings must have been WAY inflated back in the day!

All the best!

Sam

Back then, there were a couple of people over 3000 as well...

Interesting, but I can't help. :-)

Yeah maybe it's just me lol

No, I see your point, but I can't share any light no the subject.

Yeah, yeah I gotcha, I mean it seems no one else has had this problem...

Three years ago, the live and TT ratings here were inflated. Adjustments were made, and now they are deflated. The correspondence rating remains slightly inflated after the change.

Glicko (the rating system used here) has been shown to deflate over large samples of games.  Categories with very large numbers of games played will usually deflate more quickly.  

Okay cool, you're right about the correspondence ratings, they are super inflated....

slightly, not super. One year ago, my correspondence rating here was less than 50 higher than my USCF. A losing streak in OTB and a winning streak here has widened the gap. I assure you that this gap is temporary.

Titled players who are not capable of keeping their live ratings above 2000 are just plain sad.

Well it seems that the difference between ones Blitz/Bullet rating and Correspondence is pretty big. I've seen 2000 Correspondence people with 1600 blitz, and they play both regulary!

Because glicko deflates over large samples, as I said.

But then shouldn't Glicko also deflate Correspondence as well?

Yes, but more slowly.  There are far fewer correspondence games played than blitz games.

can only agree with ziryab, thousands of profiles on this site with current bullet ratings of 1600, 1700 and a proud past of > 2000 back in 2010/2011; interesting though that the adjustments have as far as I know never been officially confirmed by chess.com

@Robik, some one just sent me this link: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/chesscom-proposal-how-to-handle-growing-bullet-ratings

thanks for posting, Sam97, I see.. but if I am right, Erik starts there a discussion how to handle the problem but at the end of the topic there is still no confirmation that any change happened?

Do you know what it is in the Glicko formula that causes this deflation ?

I would have thought if there was any deflationary element, it would the regular input of underrated chess players (regular players entering the pool at 1200 rather than their real OTB rating).

But something had to have been done becasue the ratings did come way down, they're not near as "silly" as they were before...

I wonder what they ended up doing...