Why would the ratings discourage you from playing?
Standard Ratings Boost
Sort:
Dec 31, 2014
0
#323
Tho few like to admit it, ratings do matter.
If everyone is bunched together at 1800-1900 as it was a few months ago, there's no incentive. Many people complain about ratings, but they offer an incentive to play.
I guess for some people who only play chess online and nowhere else then their online rating gives them their sense of achievement. Which is fine, but screwing about with the rating system to please these people at the expense of those who can see that its the wrong attitude to have is annoying.
Dec 31, 2014
0
#325
What you're missing, small_potato, is that the standard ratings were already "screwed", to use your verb, before the admins started mucking about with it. There was a real problem with the ratings.
If ratings don't matter, there's no sense in complaining about the site changing them, is there?
The sense in complaining is that before it was possible to track progress over time using ratings provided you didn't go out of your way to manipulate your rating as some people seem to do. Now the stats and graphs are hard to make any sense out of and the averages and so on are a useless load of crap. It would have been better just to wipe the stats and start again rather than ballsing them up so they no longer make any sense.
SmyslovFan wrote:
the standard ratings were already "screwed", to use your verb,
I'm still not sure how a boost in the ratings is going to be an incentive to get people to play. Personally, I don't play more or less because of it. Sure seeing your rating improve as your improve at chess is an important thing, but it is difficult to see it is going to become more of an incentive as your rating goes up.
Also, your usage of 'screwed' here is an adjective, not a verb. 
Dec 31, 2014
0
#328
GreenCastleBlock wrote:
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.
The "average opponent rating" should have been bumped, too. Everyone has average opponents far below their current rating.
small_potato wrote:
The sense in complaining is that before it was possible to track progress over time using ratings provided you didn't go out of your way to manipulate your rating as some people seem to do. Now the stats and graphs are hard to make any sense out of and the averages and so on are a useless load of crap. It would have been better just to wipe the stats and start again rather than ballsing them up so they no longer make any sense.
Yeah, the complexities of add or subtracting a number as dizzyingly large as 200 or even... 400... I mean, the mathematicians at chess.com who understand the rating system so well can't expect us laymen to preform calculations like that, on the fly, in our heads, like we were as intelligent as a 6 year old. No no no, not at all.
Ziryab wrote:
GreenCastleBlock wrote:
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.
The "average opponent rating" should have been bumped, too. Everyone has average opponents far below their current rating.
This is true. I hate it because I feel it is a better measure of a persons skill than their posted rating because of the many ways to minipulate their rating.
But, in the case above, that player was ALREADY playing much weaker players when his rating was boosted.
Dec 31, 2014
0
#331
I can say that as someone with a 1300 to 1400 rating (bounces around), it is extremely frustrating to lose points to a new player with a 1200 rating in a official tournament only to see that player a month later have a rating of more than 1600.
Chess.com has lots of new players coming in every day a much higher ratio than typical other cohorts.
This seems like an attempt to fix this. However it is only temporary as new players come in. I would rather see players stay unrated until they have been through some number of games or have it not negatively impact players that lose to new players until they have a certain number of games.
Well leiph18 it doesn't surprise me much that such a moronic steaming pile of turd of a comment has been left by somebody using an account with no games played against it and registered two days ago.
That's my excuse.
What's yours?
small_potato wrote:
Well leiph18 it doesn't surprise me much that such a moronic steaming pile of turd of a comment has been left by somebody using an account with no games played against it and registered two days ago.
I *think* that's supposed to be a red Christmas tree, but I could be wrong.
Dec 31, 2014
0
#335
USMNTfan wrote:
I can say that as someone with a 1300 to 1400 rating (bounces around), it is extremely frustrating to lose points to a new player with a 1200 rating in a official tournament only to see that player a month later have a rating of more than 1600.
Chess.com has lots of new players coming in every day a much higher ratio than typical other cohorts.
This seems like an attempt to fix this. However it is only temporary as new players come in. I would rather see players stay unrated until they have been through some number of games or have it not negatively impact players that lose to new players until they have a certain number of games.
Until chess.com offers tournaments that require non-provisional ratings, I will continue to avoid them.
do they have any plans to do a similar thing to 960 chess? Those ratings seem deflated as well
Dec 31, 2014
0
#337
Still too many cheaters in Standard. I have had three cheaters in my last 7 games in standard, and now have just quit playing standard and stopped being a premium member. The last cheater that I reported, had won 64 games in a row before I reported him. There should be an algorithm that detects any statistical anomaly's like that
you are right frontrunner.Quite a few times i have watched standard tournament games and my impression was that there was a lot of cheating.1300 players would play so fast and error-free that it was shocking.the best of all was when two cheaters played against one another!
Apotek wrote:
there was a lot of cheating.1300 players would play so fast and error-free that it was shocking
If they are cheating, then why the hell are they still rated 1300?
It is really amazing how the logic can escape people when they are looking for an excuse for losing games.
The ratings graph for standard ratings is still skewed, but it will slowly sort itself out as more games are played.
What would really persuade me whether the site did right or wrong is to see whether there has been a spike in the number of games played since they adjusted the rating. One of the main problems with the old ratings was that it killed the desire to play standard chess.
Has there been a spike in the number of games played? If so, then the ratings will fix themselves.