When you start, you choose your level, either "New to chess", "Beginner", "Intermediate", "Advanced", "Expert". If you chose advanced for example you will be 1500 as the first rating, and will rise or drop according to your play.
Actually, start as 1600 as advanced, 1200 as intermediate, 800 as beginner, 400 as new to chess. Seems to go in increments of 400
I wish the algorithm was smarter and properly categorized people based on their play as opposed to what they say they are. Nothing worse than playing someone who is a lower rated player because they said they were "New to Chess" and you can tell by the moves they're making that their is no way they are "new to chess".
I wish the algorithm was smarter and properly categorized people based on their play as opposed to what they say they are. Nothing worse than playing someone who is a lower rated player because they said they were "New to Chess" and you can tell by the moves they're making that their is no way they are "new to chess".
I agree with you 100%! I actually wanted to write in the forums about this point.
I was thinking about having the player play a couple of games -- maybe like 2 -- with the bots before getting a provisional rating, then put them into one of the four buckets of 400, 800, 1200, 1600.
I have seen somebody call themselves "new to chess" rated 400 but actually they play like an 1800, winning an 1800 and seeing complex tactics. That surely would just torture their first few opponents, definitely make their opponents anywhere below 1400 have a rough time of it. Conversely, at my rapid rating, I got paired with a lot of new players who overrated themselves and then play at like sub-1000 level, which is also frustrating.
I don't know if this is an idea that has been considered or if staff has any comments on it?
1st word
I wish the algorithm was smarter and properly categorized people based on their play as opposed to what they say they are. Nothing worse than playing someone who is a lower rated player because they said they were "New to Chess" and you can tell by the moves they're making that their is no way they are "new to chess".
The Glicko rating system is that smarter algorithm. It doesn't takeany games for most members to get within the ballpark of an appropriate rating.
A choice on with extreme end may take a little longer if the true strength is towards the opposite end, but not drastically so
But is there any way to prevent say 1800 rated players from calling themselves 400? Or do we just have to deal with that?
I remember I got 200something elo points for my first rapid win. So it would probably still take like 7 games to cross a gap that large.
But is there any way to prevent say 1800 rated players from calling themselves 400? Or do we just have to deal with that?
I remember I got 200something elo points for my first rapid win. So it would probably still take like 7 games to cross a gap that large.
No, there's no way to keep that from happening. If someone is truly that strong and purposely chose a lower strength, any method designed to stop that wouldn't work (member could just do poorly).
Yes but 10 games is a lot which is my previous point. But I take the point that there's nothing that can be done
When you start, you choose your level, either "New to chess", "Beginner", "Intermediate", "Advanced", "Expert". If you chose advanced for example you will be 1500 as the first rating, and will rise or drop according to your play.
Actually, start as 1600 as advanced, 1200 as intermediate, 800 as beginner, 400 as new to chess. Seems to go in increments of 400
This is the previous system of where you start I think? Maybe it changed back now...
Well very recently I played a ton of new "advanced" 1600s. Also I started this account at 1200 for intermediate like two weeks ago. And I assume the lower levels are still 800 and 400? But I'm curious, what was your impression of what it changed to?
Perhaps all new accounts should be unrated, with maybe 12 games played to get a rating. Before a rating is given, the new player would be ineligible for any prizes, and rating gain/loss given to their opponents only after a rating has been achieved.
Perhaps all new accounts should be unrated, with maybe 12 games played to get a rating. Before a rating is given, the new player would be ineligible for any prizes, and rating gain/loss given to their opponents only after a rating has been achieved.
I agree completely with this and the original post about this concern, but players could still intentionally play bad during that period and only then use their full ability on new players, but it would help against fake high-level players
It was 700 for Beginner, 1100 for intermediate, 1500 for advanced and 2000 for expert. Actually, I am starting to doubt that it had this rating system, so it might be the memory.
I don't believe it's ever been those values.
When the option first started, it was 400, 800, 1200, 1600, and 2000.
edit: after looking at some older topics, I didn't find the exact values, but I know all were even and initially it may have started at 800 and topped out at 2000. I found some mention of 1000 being a default, so it may have been in 200 increments mostly
edit 2: found some other posts and initially it may actually have been 1800 as the highest. 2000 most have come around when 2000 was added at the top, 400 at the bottom, with 400 point bands
Perhaps all new accounts should be unrated, with maybe 12 games played to get a rating. Before a rating is given, the new player would be ineligible for any prizes, and rating gain/loss given to their opponents only after a rating has been achieved.
This is pretty close to how it already works. When an experienced account plays a new account, the experienced account will win/lose fewer points than normal, and at least back when I made this account, you can't see your rating during your first 5 games.
Why do some players start with a rating of 1000 or more? When I started, I had 200 points and had to work my way up but some seem to start high and work their way down. Can anyone explain this, please? Thanks!