Standard Ratings Boost

Speak for yourself, I paid 2 years of diamond membership, so at least I think I deserve some kind of explanation when I find my rating 200 points lower than usual while everybody is celebrating a +400. More or less my problem was quickly solved, but that's not a way to treat people. If you are going to change contracted conditions you should communicate them first, IMHO

Thanks

thanks for the rating!

I understand where you're coming from.  I just can't take the ratings here seriously.  Here's why.  I'm watching a guy now who is high-1700s.  He has padded his rating here almost 500 points by exclusively playing all his rated games only against computer medium, which drops 3 pieces to him every game by move 15.  Meanwhile, he loses game after game to 1400 players, wins about 1 in 20 to 1500 players, but only plays against people if its unrated.

That is pathetic and embarrassing, but his make believe rating is his problem.  But how seriously can you take the ratings here when nonsense like that can occur?  So I just play chess and don't worry over my rating, because the ratings here are not accurate and have too many loopholes that people are abusing.

For the record, I paid also for a long stretch, did not really use any of the premium benefits, but did so to the site as a courtesy for what they provide and my ability to play decent games without the hassle of driving to tournaments or clubs.  Plus, I enjoy talking to people all over the world and learning about different cultures.  I've met some good people, some of whom I talk to often outside of this site.  So the poor rating system notwithstanding, I personally still think this site has a lot of different value to it.

@theVchip, I also appreciate all the positive features of the site that you talk about. I don't care much about rating issues in general, but I just wanted the same as the rest of the users, nothing more and nothing less. I still think that in this particular case things could have been done better. For the record, I'm still missing 200 standard rating points since they "downgraded" me to 1635 and then "upgraded" me to 2035. I didn't complain beacuse, as I told to another spanish user, neither I want them nor do I need them. Besides, 2235 is an unrealistic rating, 2035 is nearer to my real level, so I won't make a fuss about it. But man, my 1835, they were hardly earned "over the board", so I wouldn't have accepted them going down for no reason. You see that I'm not an easy complainer, and hope to have myself understood. Have a nice day

@tactiquero, fair enough, my friend, and all valid points.  Good day to you, as well :)

Urgh, so this is why my rating is messed up. Surely this is a contender for dumb idea of the year. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall there being any communication via the message system about this, I just logged in one day to find my rating completely different, my assumption til now was some cack-handed junior developer was let loose to practice his SQL skills on the production database.

I don't see where I disagree with your assessment.  My points are stating an area that creates inaccurate ratings.  You're agreeing with me that they're inaccurate and then you're saying I'm wrong?  You seem to be missing my point, which is that I find the rating system flawed and that is why I don't take the ratings seriously.  Which is why, on the prior page, I stated: how much do the ratings here mean when (1) games aren't sectioned by strength; (2) ratings can be padded against much weaker human and computer opponents; and (3) arbitrary, not performance based, rating inflations are added?"

Personally, I just want to play chess.  You can rate me 30 or 300,000 as long as I can find people my own strength.  This is why I have always advocated to fix how we're rated.  Get rid of rated games against incorrectly rated computers, make it so people cannot gain points unless playing someone in their rating range, etc.  There's no perfect system, but you can at least do what you can to reduce bad structure in how we're rated.

No, this site is not a courtesy and is not free.

And the change would have to be announced before it happened.

And it was done in an unequal way across the rating ranges.

You're kidding me, right? This website is entirely free, you only choose to pay for premium services. There are so many more resources out there as well that you should not absolutely NEED to pay for the premium content here, although the premium content is very nice.

Don't try to strawman your frustration into something that is irrelevant. This change is fine, if you deserved it you'll continue to climb up the ladder and those that didn't will continue to fall back down.

Hi folks

Is there a minimum limit (1300) to get these points or is it for all members ?

I say that because one of my rating (standard) reached 1451 whithout I had to do anything, while my bullet ranking (that i play even more often) did'nt change .

nd997

@nd997:

It's just for standard.

Thanks baddogno ;)

Good move

I want +500

My title fide is on the date 30 of september

https://ratings.fide.com/tournament_details.phtml?event=101358

and this article is on the date 21 of october

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/livechess/standard-ratings-boost

In standard live (15/10) my grade went from aprox 1500 to 1650 but it is still 200 off my OTB. Surely it would be better commercially to rate players more than less to encourage them to play chess.com. I almost left because the grading was a joke. Also the adjustment for a win / loss is far too low. Maybe your grade should only be based on your last say 30 games?  

Chess.com's adjustment was in the right direction, they just went way too far. They should have realised this when they saw they were giving players  with OTB ratings of 2200 standard ratings of 2700. 

A rating adjustment of ~200-300 rating points at the top would have addressed the problem nicely.

The guy with the highest standard rating on the site has a win-loss record of 1 win, 3 losses, and 2 draws!

Yes,

The 400 and 500 increase in ratings at the top was too much. I think increasing by 250 or 300 would've been better. I guess cheaters will take points from the higher rated players and eventually deflate the ratings again.

Again, the guy with the highest rating on the site has a LOSING record! That's an impossible situation. You don't need to cheat to gain rating points in such a situation.

if you DON'T want your rating boost, please contact support and they can adjust it down for you.