I don't know....
I'd like to see something more like a USCF provisional rating type system...
losing to person new to chess.com who's way better than me but yet is 1200 in rating bothers me.
Start at 1500 instead of 1200
Sort:
Oct 28, 2007
0
#3
I think on average, most players who play their first game on the site play lower than the 1200 rating so I believe 1200 is a better starting rating than 1500.
are you strong or weak player,the time will show.
1200 is a good start.
Oct 28, 2007
0
#5
On another site I started at 1400 but now my rating on that site is very similar to my rating here. So at least in my case the 1200 starting rating works.
Oct 28, 2007
0
#6
yeah. this will all average out. plus, there are many many new players on chess.com, so the average is more realistically 1200. :) i think most people have found their ratings normalized quickly to their real rating!
the rating changes drastically because you won/lost games. 1500 is too high for a beginner. 1200 i think is just right and when you win your first game it increase up to 1400 because its your ability. its just like youre under provision for the meantime. when you stabilized youre rating after 5 games rating are not drastically changed.(unless youve had a game for much weaker or stronger player)
If you start at 1500 the rating of the new players will also normalise, but the rating of the "stabilised" players won't be affected so much when that new player actually isn't 1500 but 1900. I'm thinking more of the people who have been playing here for a while already, and whose rating doesn't really normalise because they play new players a lot.
I would prefer to start at 3000 and work my way down...
Sprite wrote:
I don't know....
I'd like to see something more like a USCF provisional rating type system...
losing to person new to chess.com who's way better than me but yet is 1200 in rating bothers me.
Me too, and that's why I'm no more matching someone with a 1200 rating.
chessmates wrote: Does it really matter? You may win, loose or draw the game. The ratings will go up and down. Enjoy the games!! Enjoy them even if you play only a few at a time.
i agree wholeheartedly with the above. the 1200 start point is mathematically the median point(between 0 and 2400)and seems to me to be working out allright. Shakespeare had it right-much ado about nothing!
Nov 4, 2007
0
#12
It took me three days to win three games and reach 1612 from 1200. Starting higher will serve mostly to inflate the ratings of weak players.
I think it would be more intimidating to weaker players (e.g. myself) if the rating was higher. If someone is good, they'll get to a higher rating fast enough.
1500 or 1200 doesn't matter because its temporary.your real rating will come up with succeeding games.
Start at 0
Margreet wrote:
If you start at 1500 the rating of the new players will also normalise, but the rating of the "stabilised" players won't be affected so much when that new player actually isn't 1500 but 1900. I'm thinking more of the people who have been playing here for a while already, and whose rating doesn't really normalise because they play new players a lot.
But if the average new player plays below 1200, starting them on 1500 will only cause rating inflation with the established players. Don't play new players if you're worried about it.
If the starting point was 1500, then almost all first-timers would lose their first 2 or 3 games, and regualrs at 1000 level would seek out exactly 1500 rated players to pad their rating with repeat easy wins against 1500's. 1200 is a better starting point IMHO.
No, actually they are not considered unrated on chess.com for purposes of opponent's rating adjustments. If you win against a first-timer, your rating goes up as if he were any other 1200 player.
In OTB ratings, I believe a "performance rating" is calculated from your first tournament played and that is used as your starting rating for purposes of adjusting your opponent's ratings.
I'm correct*. His RD does not affect both rating adjustments, only his adjustment.
E.g: If I am rated 1300 and beat a 1200 first-timer, I gain 5 points because of my high RD. He loses 100 becasue of his low RD.
* edit: I'm incorrect - see discussion below
Tactickle wrote:
I'm correct. His RD does not affect both rating adjustments, only his adjustment.
E.g: If I am rated 1300 and beat a 1200 first-timer, I gain 5 points because of my high RD. He loses 100 becasue of his low RD.
See here http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko.pdf
"It is interesting to note that, in the Glicko system, rating changes are not balanced as they usually are in the Elo system. If one player’s rating increases by x, the opponent’s rating does not usually decrease by x as in the Elo system. In fact, in the Glicko system, the amount by which the opponent’s rating decreases is governed by both players’ RD’s."
A high RD leads to large adjustments.
"The Glicko system therefore extends the Elo system by computing not only a rating, which can be thought of as a “best guess” The Glicko system therefore extends the Elo system by computing not only a rating, which can be thought of as a “best guess” of one’s playing strength, but also a “ratings deviation” (RD) or, in statistical terminology, a standard deviation, which measures the uncertainty in a rating (high RD’s correspond to unreliable ratings). A high RD indicates that a player may not be competing frequently or that a player has only competed in a small number of tournament games. A low RD indicates that a player competes frequently."
I have read some forum topics about rating on this site, and I was wondering whether or not it would be a good idea to let new players start at 1500 instead of 1200. I know a site where you start at 1500, unless you can provide a real rating, FIDE or correspondence chess or something.
If the new player is stronger than 1500, the opponent's rating doesn't drop so dramatically if he wins. Plus the new player's rating doesn't go up that dramatically either.
If the new player loses, his rating will drop of course more than if he starts at 1200, but his opponent's rating won't be affected as much.
I think this might stabilise ratings a bit more, especially as new players register every day. Players will arrive at an "appropriate" rating more gradually. If you are a 1200 player, you'll get there. If you are a 2000 player, you'll get there too, but without upsetting so many other players' ratings rather drastically.
I'd be interested to hear other people's opinions on this.