Have you read the zillion threads about "accurate" ratings? Ratings are accurate only within a given pool.
My own online ratings at different sites range from a high near 2400 to a low near 1600. That's just correspondence chess.
Which of these is accurate? All.
Welcome to the 1%.
it was ridiculous to have someone rated 2100 in blitz be rated 1600 in standard. we had a lot of deflationary pressure on our standard ratings due to some odd outside factors. we were attempting to compensate. it IS confusing to have an active OTB titled player be rated 1800 on chess.com. so of course, we understand how ratings work (as a reflection of the pool they are in). but it is also irrational to expect that everyone understands that, or that someone's online rating would be 400 points off of their OTB. :)
1. Standard average ratings were higher than blitz. For the average player, blitz ratings were the lowest. Now most people have a standard rating hundreds of points above their blitz. Online ratings are also vastly higher than other other than the top end yet only standard were changed.
2. None of this matters. If someone is 2000 FIDE, 3000 on chess.com and 8000 on chesscube, as long as the 8000 scores 75% against 7800 players it's an accurate rating. Artificial correction leads to the graphs we now see for standard.
3. If ratings are miles apart for that type of player it's going to be due to activity a large percentage of the time.
4. You say that you know ratings are only appropriate for a particular pool then say it's ridiculous for someone to have ratings apart in each. Contradictory.
5. If you change ratings unevenly, they become inaccurate. Ratings are a measure of results. If a titled player has a 50% score against 1800 players then it's completely accurate for them to have a 1800 rating. Their OTB credentials are irrelevant to their chess.com results. (Only discussing established ratings, starting titled players at a higher rating seems to make sense). Increasing different pools by different amounts just means that their ratings are no longer reflective of results or ability.
6. Really strong players just don't play standard as often here. They play quick games. If standard ratings are low at the top end it's because there isn't sufficient differences in ability between the starting rating and the best players.
People either play correspondence or blitz. Nobody likes standard live for some reason..
The players on standard live are stronger, or at least were before the rating jump. A 1600 on standard was pretty strong, usually like a 1750 on online chess. But why must some players get more boost then others?
Does this mean Standard ratings are close to what OTB rankings would be? I don't have an OTB ranking so it would be nice to know where I stand.
Was this limited to standard ratings?
Yes, limited to standard. Though, I, as some others, didn't get any boost on standard, at all.
I posted that mine wasn't boosted. But then I played a few games, my RD dropped below 80, and I was given a 300 point boost.
I might stay above 1200 now :)
Does this mean Standard ratings are close to what OTB rankings would be? I don't have an OTB ranking so it would be nice to know where I stand.
No, and there are numerous reasons for this. (1) OTB (over the board) tournament games are against human opponents. Here, you have a ton of people playing against inaccurately rated computer opponents, which itself skews the entire rating pool.
(2) Rating padding (people playing much lower rated opponents to inflate their rating) and sandbagging (losing on purpose to play in a tournament against people below your true strength) are both possible here. OTB games are usually played within class against similar rated opposition to help prevent false rating inflation, and measures are typically in place, like rating floors, to help minimize/offset sandbagging.
(3) Time controls here and OTB can be quite different. For instance, while a 25/0 game here is considered slow, that's a speed game by FIDE and USCF standards, and it does not affect your slow time rating. I personally find OTB tournament games are typically far more demanding. My last two tournament games, for instance, (40 movies in 2 hrs, sudden death 1 hr) took about 10 hours combined, and were both played on the same day.
(4) You generally paid and put money on the line to play OTB, and that right there puts a different tension and/or pressure on the games. An early loss or two can kill you, and you know it.
There are more factors, but I think my response is already long-winded enough. I am not suggesting one thing is better or worse than the other. I am simply saying, as an answer to your question, that online and OTB are fairly apples and oranges and I don't find them very comparable. Nor do I see by observation that the ratings here and OTB are all too similar. To me they overall look noticeably higher here. This is just my observation and nothing more, but I tried to answer your question as best I could.
Same game. Different speeds. Lots of blather in between. Deal with it.
Hi,
Maybe this question has been asked already, but since some parts of the "statistics" section are closely related to rating, is it planned to allow to reset them ? For example, the "average rating of my opponents when I lose / win /draw" doesn't mean anything now I'm 150 points higher, and it while take a while for it to reflect my opponent's new level ...
Maybe it's already possible but I can't find any settings about it.
Thanks a lot !
so, my rating should be 1600?
Hi,
Maybe this question has been asked already, but since some parts of the "statistics" section are closely related to rating, is it planned to allow to reset them ? For example, the "average rating of my opponents when I lose / win /draw" doesn't mean anything now I'm 150 points higher, and it while take a while for it to reflect my opponent's new level ...
Maybe it's already possible but I can't find any settings about it.
Thanks a lot !
The math to make things make sense is now quite complex.
thanks a lot chess.com
thanks a lot chess.com
LOL;
Who is qualified to get the ratings boost?
Who is qualified to get the ratings boost?
Everybody, but it´s in Standard, and you play blitz and bullet.
I think the guys above standard rating is about 200 points too high.
LMAO;
It may be to stimulate interest, pure and simple.
nope. this was done 100% in an effort to make all of our ratings more accurate. it obviously did not work for everyone. very sorry.
Erik: I respectfully suggest that making the chess.com ratings "more accurate" - assuming that means reflective of other systems (FIDE), is an unrealistic goal. chess.com ratings are reflective of the pool on chess.com - trying to make them match something else shouldn't work in the long-term.
we know this. we were not trying to match people's OTB ratings to their standard ratings. we were trying to match people's blitz/bullet to their standard only here on chess.com. it was ridiculous to have someone rated 2100 in blitz be rated 1600 in standard. we had a lot of deflationary pressure on our standard ratings due to some odd outside factors. we were attempting to compensate. it IS confusing to have an active OTB titled player be rated 1800 on chess.com. so of course, we understand how ratings work (as a reflection of the pool they are in). but it is also irrational to expect that everyone understands that, or that someone's online rating would be 400 points off of their OTB. :)