I have seen my bullet rating fall about 300 points in about 3 days. what is amazing is that, most of my opponents also had a fall in peak ratings by about 200 points, one person from 2100 to 1700 points in 2 months. This is bizarre, peoples understanding of chess does not fall or rise in matter of 3 days.
I apply this also to blitz and rapid from my experience. I have seen this play out the same in blitz and also rapid. And when I do face people with a peak rating of around 1700 pts, often i can see the difference. one can clearly see the difference between people with 1700 level play vs people with a peak rating of 1850 and above. They can see through the tricks and important piece play vs those in genuine 1700s. My sense is often more reliable than the rating, often, rating lulls you to defeat.
What gives?. I am not sorely angry with my rating downfall, I can get that back, I am genuinely interested in how this difference comes about. This is very strange. Even in rapid, peoples understanding of chess principles does not fluctuate much.
And there are not that many opening tricks i see at my level of play, so there isnt thorough opening preparation either to count for it. I just is the case that when i get beaten, its often that the other person has similar chess understanding as me. When i win, its often against people with genuine 1700 peak rating, vs when i lose, in that case, their peak rating is over 1850.
It seems there are pools of players that get cycled against one another , with easy people thrown in once in a while and harder people later on. can clearly see this in terms of peak ratings of the individual.
I don't see that you have made a case that ratings are "rigged" here. It seems to me that you have simply observed patterns of play from the players you have faced
I have seen my bullet rating fall about 300 points in about 3 days. what is amazing is that, most of my opponents also had a fall in peak ratings by about 200 points, one person from 2100 to 1700 points in 2 months. This is bizarre, peoples understanding of chess does not fall or rise in matter of 3 days.
I apply this also to blitz and rapid from my experience. I have seen this play out the same in blitz and also rapid. And when I do face people with a peak rating of around 1700 pts, often i can see the difference. one can clearly see the difference between people with 1700 level play vs people with a peak rating of 1850 and above. They can see through the tricks and important piece play vs those in genuine 1700s. My sense is often more reliable than the rating, often, rating lulls you to defeat.
What gives?. I am not sorely angry with my rating downfall, I can get that back, I am genuinely interested in how this difference comes about. This is very strange. Even in rapid, peoples understanding of chess principles does not fluctuate much.
And there are not that many opening tricks i see at my level of play, so there isnt thorough opening preparation either to count for it. I just is the case that when i get beaten, its often that the other person has similar chess understanding as me. When i win, its often against people with genuine 1700 peak rating, vs when i lose, in that case, their peak rating is over 1850.
It seems there are pools of players that get cycled against one another , with easy people thrown in once in a while and harder people later on. can clearly see this in terms of peak ratings of the individual.