actually if you want you can start with 1800, but it doesnt matter because after a couple of games you are going to have your real level
Initial rating 1200 too high
Sort:
apotosaurus wrote:
Dr_Roman_Anton wrote:
1) ELOs must be comparable in chess - undeniable
2) Chess.com and Online-Chess site ELO rating is 300-900 ELO points to low - undeniable
3) ELO distributions show that up to 1000 ELO points are missing all players
4) Scientific ELO-Tests show that up to 900 ELO points are missing per player
5) The chess puzzle and lesson rating on CHess.com are show that 400 ELO point are missing
6) The 1600 games in chess.com show 2000-level chess play in opening, mid game and ending
7) There is frequently a grandmaster-level game at the ELO of 1600 - with no or only minimal weak moves - this corresponds to a level of 2000 ELO not 1600 ELO
7) It doesnt matter how well you apply or would apply your chess knowledge - if there are not enough ELO points in the system you will always stay in the "15-16-hundred Tower" what the players call the phenomenon that they cannot explain
>>>> BY UNARGUABLE EVIDENCE THE ELO OF EVERY PLAYER IS TOO LOW <<<<
One feels so historic in this discussion - all chess players will thank it if you make that change.
This is absolutely clear. Many hundreds of ELO points are missing
You really think that? I would have an FIDE rating of about 1400 using the converter system from other federations, but my tactics rating is about 2350.
Wow!! My tactics rating is only 1500...
Let's celebrate chess folks - our ELO is in fact 500 points higher. 1500 are 2000 we are PROs 
no joke
I find it hard to believe that my ELO rating is a few hundred points too low. If anything, it might be a few hundred points too high.
DRA is a master for sure. A master of contriving scenarios in his head where he is an OTB master without having to prove it.
I want to hear more about the Mind Manipulation!
I have long suspected that some of my more catastrophic blunders were not truly my fault but only now is the truth being revealed...
Give us the good oil Doctor!
Mar 3, 2018
0
#69
Oh wow! I'm actually 2300! Better go get me my title!
Not. On my very best days, playing for my school team, I can give a 2100 a good game, but it's a rare day indeed that I'll take one down.
I'd guess Chess/com ratings are pretty much on the money, maybe slightly underrated (~50 points?)
Yes, we are all 200-500 ELO Points better -> the good news
But, that ranking percentile probably stays the same -> same news
In a world with 200 Million Chess Players, what ELO would you expect of the top 200.000 Players?
In random games theses players would be 999 times the stronger player and only 1 is still better!
Guess what level they have on Chess.com's ELO ranging 0-3000 ELO Points???
And now compare it to the number 1600 ELO. That is probably 400-600 ELO points to less according to the ELO Distribution and independent scientific RATING on ELOMETER.
But a currently 2000 ELO rated player will also get many more points so the ranking stays the same.
The ranking is more accurate than the ELO system.
Mar 4, 2018
0
#71
But the fact of the matter is that I know for a fact that I'm nowhere near 2300. You could convince me I'm as high as 1900 (I had a 2100 try to convince me of that the other day!), but not any higher. I get massacred by NMs nearly every game, and to imply I'm near their playing strength is pure folly. ELOmeter is a super sketchy site at best - I wouldn't put any stock into it.
Mar 4, 2018
0
#72
Dr_Roman_Anton wrote:
Yes, according to my understanding, the rating pool system very much - almost totally - fixed with limited available points. This almost totally fixed system with regards to aggregated points is the reason for the artificial ELO scarcity...
!
Why are they doing this to us must be the question!
Then your understanding is incorrect. For that to be true, each new player added to the system would have to pull their initial rating in point away from their opponents and that does not happen. Also, when a player stops playing, the points they take out of the system would have to be replaced. It just doesn't work like that.
Nothing is being done, you just play and the rating you get will be reflective of your performance of the pool you play in and relatively accurate within that pool.
Mar 4, 2018
0
#73
Dr_Roman_Anton wrote:
You are wrong again, my games are fine except the weak moves and the blunders when I am mind manipulated, which is another bog topic here. We are mind manipulated to lose games - not kidding.
The games are around 1900 not 2000 that would indicate that 400 ELO points are missing.
Since decades you are used to a wrong ELO scale. It does not make me wonder that you cannot do this intellectual transfer work to the new scale. You have internalized the wrong ELO scale too much. Y
Also, FIE average ELO numbers are rising year by year like tournament ELO averages!
Only on internet chess sites like chess.com they are falling year by year since more than 10 years.
As Wishy said, it is more simple to learn chess than ever before; due to sites like this. Hence the average ELO points should have risen since decades and not falling! Just think of it.
Why is everyone so stubborn here? Are you all mind-manipulated to be stubborn?
OK, now I need to stop replying to this topic, There is no way to discuss a logical topic when one believes there is some kind of conspiracy keeping their rating down 
I really think you get me totally wrong.
(1) If the majority of players start with too few ELO points that in sum there are too few ELO points
(2) subsequent competition about these scarce ELO points leads to a lack of 500-300 ELO points from 1400-2000 ELO players
It works like that: the system must be continuously re-adjusted so that the total sum of all ELO points equals the total sum of all ELO skill points of players that are recently playing
There are millions of players, hence the total amount of points will only very slowly change.
The main daily work to be done is the re-adjustment: how to supply the system with new points?
This is more critical and difficult. Should all players get a % ELO raise at once or over a longer time?
Every new players chess skills could be assessed and one should start here with the puzzle ELO - as this is more reliable than 1200 ELO to begin with. But that would take a week before an account is created - maybe a short version of a puzzle test like ELOmeter
- a scientific proof that I am right with this by the way.
I want to hear more about the Mind Control that I fear is ruining my game also!
Give us the details Dr Anton.
My blunders have been especially bad these past 2 days and on one occasion I noticed that outside there were contrails across the sky in the shape of a pentagram.
I can feel my blunder vindication is close at hand!
That "scientific" elometer determined my ELO to be only 1850 while my blitz rating here is 1640 - same as yours and my tactics rating is higher than yours. And this was indeed my ELO a few decades ago when I played in a couple of tournaments.
However, didn't the elometer test say that you are supposed to decide your moves fast and not calculate anything? If it took you a week to complete the test, may-be your elometer result is too high?
Mar 5, 2018
0
#77
Clearly the Dr. is a a troll. But in the spirit of trying to be helpful generally: provisional ratings add total points to the pool. Your USCF rating is provisionally set, roughly, as the average of your wins + 400 and losses - 400. After that, ELO moves according to K x (OUtcome - Expected Outcome) + Bonus (if applicable). K is a function of rating (via the effective number of games played definition). This means ELO points, even after initial seeding, are NOT conserved.
wanmokewan wrote:
right
I believe when you create an account you can choose a starting rating. 1200 is default.
Mar 13, 2018
0
#79
The alien in my head should be rated around 2000. But my rating is around 1100. How does my ET rating affect my ELO?
That clearly shows that the ELO system in not comparable - but it should.
All ELO systems must be comparable. This is the idea behind ELO systems.
Comparability is always the first goal and utmost important goal.
I found out that the total amount of ELO points in the system is always wrong in online chess.
Whatever rating system you use - it is just as good as the overall aggregated points match the real chess skill level.
If you give every new player ONLY 1200 ELO like Chess.com does - it can only be wrong, as many players are better. This causes artificial ELO scarcity in the system, also in Glicko that does not correct for this.
So we need to ask CHess.com to correct their mistake and not to cheat on our ELO!