Heinkel111, this is not correct. The average rating is 400 ELO higher not lower. I have checked this.
This may be solely due to the registered ratings being higher on average than lower. For example, the average guest who plays may have a rating equivalent of 800, compared to the default of 1200
False...We have a ELO deflations since 2000 due to the fact that the starting ELO is too low.
Every year the ELO deflates more in the entire system, now it is 500 ELO points that are missing on average per player. Only the TOP ELOs are unaffected by it due to the relative win ratio with remaining players. The ELO system deflates very much when chess players start with 1200.
The Harvard Glicko system does not solve this point, it only speeds up the adjustment. Even if big changes are at the beginning. It does not do anything about the initial value problem that causes the 500 ELO point deflation that we have today.
Since 2000, every year the ELO has deflated ca. 20 ELO points per year for average players.
In short, ELO points are stolen from the average players. They are in fact much better!
The United States Chess Federation rating system (OTB) has some "adjustments" that might be used to ameliorate the problem.
When a players starts, he has NO rating. Once he plays in a tournament, he is given a rating equivalent to that of a player achieving his result would have. That is, should a new player score three points in six games against players whose ratings average 1524, he will receive a provisional rating of 1524. That rating will then be used in calculating his opponents' rating gain or loss. Realizing that the small sample size of this rating means there is a great chance of inaccuracy, this method continues to be used until the player has played 25 games.
There is also a provision for "bonus points", recognizing that some occaissional players may have greatly improved in the time between tournaments. A player who has a result much better than his rating would suggest will be awarded a greater ratings than usual, and his opponents will be given feedback bonuses. This should compensate for any ratings that are too low.
The one feature of the system that seems suspect to me is that no player can have a rating lower than the bottom of the class below that of his highest-ever rating. I realize that this is to combat sandbagging--deliberately losing points in low-cost tournaments or at regular clubs in order to have a good chance at a class prize in a big-money event. As a septuagenarian who took a 25-year hiatus I can testify that this provision leads at artificially-high ratings, hence overall rating inflation.
False...We have a ELO deflations since 2000 due to the fact that the starting ELO is too low.
Every year the ELO deflates more in the entire system, now it is 500 ELO points that are missing on average per player. Only the TOP ELOs are unaffected by it due to the relative win ratio with remaining players. The ELO system deflates very much when chess players start with 1200.
The Harvard Glicko system does not solve this point, it only speeds up the adjustment. Even if big changes are at the beginning. It does not do anything about the initial value problem that causes the 500 ELO point deflation that we have today.
Since 2000, every year the ELO has deflated ca. 20 ELO points per year for average players.
In short, ELO points are stolen from the average players. They are in fact much better!
3 years on and still talking absolute nonsense. If only you had focused your time on improving yourself rather than complaining...
^Dr Roman Anton has made serious allegations of mind control being perpetrated on players which negatively impacts their chess.com ratings.
Clues so far include unusual contrail patterns and malevolent cortical homunculi manifestations.
Where are Mulder and Scully when you need them?