Standard Ratings Boost

You can fix it. Just play ~25 rated games and your rating will go to its natural level.

lol okay, but I dont play standard games. :D I just want to make my ratings look a bit better, because it seems really strange to have a 2100 standard rating next to the 2200 blitz and bullet rating. I thought chess.com support could fix this. Cheers

did this plan achieve the desired goal?  I don't have a USCF or a FIDE rating but I feel overrated now. I played a few games and the play on my side and my opponents doesn't seem like 1650.  Blunders either from them or me in the first 15 moves.  Or is that the going standard of 1650 rated players?  Maybe this worked for high end players but not the novices?

im not a 1533 rated player, in my opinion - i can consistently beat or be slightly better than the 1400 range, not sure if that is right - i think of myself more as a 1300-1400 rated player max (USCF)

This boost is totally worthless.The reason standard ratings are so low is because cheaters strip points from the pool, and than have their accounts deleted, forever removing points. In 6 months, they will have to give another 200 point infusion. They really need an alogtherim that catches cheaters mcuh faster, rather than depending on players to report a cheater.

Everyone gets the boost but Polgar.  (inside chess history joke)

However, if the sample size for that algorithm is too low (which would probably be the case if speed were the only consideration), there would be a significant number of people caught who weren't actually cheating.

20-30 games will be more than enough to catch any cheater

Well, it's a bit like trolls : with some experience, you don't need that much data to know them...

Am I a cheater?

I do not know, I didn't analyse your games

So that's why my rating jumped. I lost a few games because I was surprised earlier. It's important to stay alert every game.

I believe the elo system ( or something equivalent) is halved for any player above 2700 so there is less movement up or down in the ratings for those players. I believe chess.com has been using that 50 percent system for everybody which is why the ratings were lower than they should have been. Now they have artificially jacked up the ratings a hundred or so points but they are still using the system that should only be used for 2700 plus players. My contention is that the ratings are still going to be lower than they should be if chess.com continues to use the half elo system for players under 2700.

What if the 1200 player is really a 2200 player or a 2000 player? Would you say that player cheated because tehy whipped your butt real quick?

I caught a 1600 cheater (my level) on his way to 2000+ and he was promptly banned by chess.com. The site is NOT entirely free (plus it relies on advertisings). 

Blitz ratings are off for me...standard was fine.  My thread:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/help-support/rating-went-up-gt200-pts-without-my-playing

Cool. In 1 year I will be 2000+!!!!!

Then I can get that 'We work hard to prevent cheating.' email.

Look at this guy's ratings.

More or less proves this rating bump wasn't done right.  2245 with an average opponent rating of 1664? No other chess playing rating of greater than 1500? There are other players who post on the forums whose Live Standard is much higher than they are strong but this is such an excellent example I found that I felt like posting it somewhere.

Without seeing the games it doesn't prove anything. If they'd played hundreds of games of blitz and/or bullet and that was their rating (still better than mine) it might just mean that playing at that speed wasn't their forte.

While on the surface it seems odd that the standard chess is higher than the online... they might just not have the time/patience for online and only have played a few games.

Similarly with the tactics and the mentor... it depends how much they wereusing it, and if they still are.

I think that just means that before the ratings boost, the deadbeat was playing much weaker opponents. The avg. opponent ratings were not adjusted as well. This loser was probably about 1900 before the boost, so he was playing people 250+ points below him. Happens all the time here where people play weaker players to keep their ratings high.