Rating Inflation on this site

I suggest that the site try working on a new formula for ratings here,If I defeat my next opponents on the correspondence chess here,my rating goes too a 2900,Which I know I'm not that strong!That's like Garry Kasparov rating or a strong rating of a Super Chess Program!!

Frankly, I wouldn't mind having my rating going up.

It's unlikely you're going to go up to 2900 if you're only 1500...

And we're on a different rating system...

*Exasperated voice* THEY ARE NOT COMPARABLE!!!!! GAH!!!!!!

*Nytik faints*

You can raise your rating from 1500 to 2900. All you have to do is give up sleeping, eating, and hygiene.

Prehaps you mean 1900?

NOpe I did the calculations on check out details,then rating adjustment and pretty much goes too 2900 rating,unless it changes as I win or lose!!

I'm a 2200 on this site now and I can barely draw a 2000 USCF guy that I know from a chess club. The site's ratings are inflated because ratings are relative, and relatively, the players on this site aren't as skilled as the more professional players in the USCF and FIDE. Deal with it.

YOu don't have too be a ding dong too figure that out,my first post suggest that they fix it,some people here like yourself are jerks!!

he's an eagle scout too.  i thought they were all friendly and courteous.  

Youre trying to compare apples to oranges.  A rating here is in no way relative to a USCF or FIDE rating.  So slow your role there champ.  A 2900 rating here doesnt mean you should be issuing challenges to Anand for the title.

Thanks for pointing the obivous out too,again I was trying to suggest something,not looking for a debate,jeez what's wrong with you people!!

What they are saying is that it doesn't matter if your rating is 2900 on this page, it's still a good tool to use to know roughly what opponents you should challenge, other people around 2900. What is the problem?

With that said, you are going to get alot less for each game you play, so there is no risk in you reaching 2900 anytime soon, unless you actually is that strong (on this website).

Worked pretty well for Bobby Fischer!

 Except that Fischer didnt give up any of those things...

Yeah, and 10 other points, but I don't understand how I was 'being a jerk.' People post this topic every day, and the reality is that chess.com ratings will always be higher than ratings from a more professional pool. There is no logical way to change it, and no reason to. So once again, you have to deal with it. You'll be a 1900 instead of a 1700 or perhaps a lower rating. Who cares? It's inflated, and everyone knows it. It's not as if it affects your playing skill or makes you look like a show-off, its a simple number with no real significance or influence.

I'm not trying to start a debate, those have been started and ended several times before. The simple conclusion was, and is, that the ratings are and will always be relative. No change is necessary.

\End rant\

Wow Mosqutip, you need to tone it down and stop stating relevant facts. I mean, that is just really obnoxious. (lol)

As I recall, the average USCF rating is just below 700.  Also, you must play a certain number of games before a rating is published.  That makes some difference.

But the point that has been made and made well in every thread on this topic - the players.  I am a USCF member.  I have to drive 2 hours to the nearest club.  Only good and dedicated players will do that.  The USCF has better players - simple.

If your ranking here is 2900, then you might be the Kasparov of Chess.com.  But beating a pool of amateurs does not prepare you for a professional match.

I think often about the movie "Searching for Bobby Fischer" about Waitskin.  Without a lot of money for chess lessons, travel to tournaments, etc. what might have happened?

I could have had that gift when I was a kid, but it would not have mattered.  My parents were strung out on drugs and we barely lived.  I could not have joined a chess club or worked on my chess game.  I was spending my energy keeping me and my sisters alive.

So it is great to be the best at Chess.com -- and no small feat.  But comparing that to USCF or FIDE is just a silly exercise.

Oh, sorry, my bad.

I play other places... but not anything really "official" gameknot.com for instance gave me a rating years ago that stayed pretty steady around 1350.  On Yahoo, on the other hand, which does seem to have better players , and more numerous for sure, I had  a rating of ( i think ) 1100.

So aside from the quality of player on the site - which i imagine to be quite a range here (this is CHESS.com, after all) - there are a number of formulas that various groups use to generate a rating. I like the fact that gameknot (although this may have changed) gives you more points for beating a higher ranked player and less for one that's ranked lower. Flip side... you lose more points for being beat by a player with a lower score. makes Sense, and it's more balanced.

Being that this IS CHESS.com, there should be a more solid rating system.