So that was the reason your rating was lower than your bullet and other categories. I cannot relate since I have not played an OTB tournament yet, although I plan to in the future. Also, I feel the player pool in blitz is much more skilled than that in rapid, in respect to mirroring ratings.
Why does Chess.com Have Deliberately Slow Rating Progression?
Sort:
Oldest
Mar 13, 2021
0
#3
Princess_Lilly wrote:
Winning a lot of games means nothing. The strength of who your opponents are is what is meaningful. I could line up 100 players at your level in a simul and win every game easily. That means far less than beating one good strong opponent.
Why are you so lonely?
Mar 13, 2021
0
#4
Princess_Lilly wrote:
Winning a lot of games means nothing. The strength of who your opponents are is what is meaningful. I could line up 100 players at your level in a simul and win every game easily. That means far less than beating one good strong opponent.
You have a point. But unless you're accusing me of cherry picking my opponents the fault is squarely on chess.com for stalling my rating progress and pairing me with lower rated opponents. Also, I welcome the challenge anytime to find out just how "easy" you can defeat the likes of me. I've defeated players rated much higher than you many times. Thanks for the input!
Mar 13, 2021
0
#5
Theimmortalpatzer01 wrote:
Princess_Lilly wrote:
Theimmortalpatzer01 wrote:
Princess_Lilly wrote:
Winning a lot of games means nothing. The strength of who your opponents are is what is meaningful. I could line up 100 players at your level in a simul and win every game easily. That means far less than beating one good strong opponent.
You have a point. But unless you're accusing me of cherry picking my opponents the fault is squarely on chess.com for stalling my rating progress and pairing me with lower rated opponents. Also, I welcome the challenge anytime to find out just how "easy" you can defeat the likes of me. I've defeated players rated much higher than you many times. Thanks for the input!
I don't know if you're cherry picking your opponents or not. But you're definitely playing nothing but weak opponents, which is YOUR fault. You could adjust your challenge formula with an upper limit of infinity and a lower limit of -25 elo, which is what I did. Somehow I didn't have any issue getting rating points. The difference is I have the ability to beat strong players. You don't.
Of course you would welcome me giving you free chess lessons. But what's in it for me? Our massive rating difference PROVES what I'm saying. All you have are the empty words of a weak player who is struggling to improve.
And newsflash dude, it wouldn't be "easy" to defeat you. It would be EASY to defeat you. You're not even strong enough to give me a warmup game. You haven't defeated ANYONE anywhere NEAR my level which is why your rating is so low and why you are whining and crying about not being able to get your rating higher.
Below are a few links to your other "general discussion" posts. Its clear to me that you created an account to troll other people. I'd be surprised if you're truly a 2400+ player talking that amount of trash for no reason. Please find something more productive to do with your time.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/bullet-chess-is-the-true-measure-of-skill
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-to-become-2448-rated-in-bullet
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-to-destroy-a-2500-player
EDIT: BLOCKED
Princess_Lilly wrote:
Winning a lot of games means nothing. The strength of who your opponents are is what is meaningful. I could line up 100 players at your level in a simul and win every game easily. That means far less than beating one good strong opponent.
+1
Mar 13, 2021
0
#7
You shouldn't have selected "new" during account creation. That's what made you start at 800. You could have started at 2000.
In any case, you've gained about 400 points in ~15 games, and that is not slow, it's very fast.
Mar 13, 2021
0
#8
Theimmortalpatzer01 wrote:
Princess_Lilly wrote:
Winning a lot of games means nothing. The strength of who your opponents are is what is meaningful. I could line up 100 players at your level in a simul and win every game easily. That means far less than beating one good strong opponent.
You have a point. But unless you're accusing me of cherry picking my opponents the fault is squarely on chess.com for stalling my rating progress and pairing me with lower rated opponents. Also, I welcome the challenge anytime to find out just how "easy" you can defeat the likes of me. I've defeated players rated much higher than you many times. Thanks for the input!
PL is a recurring troll. He'll only insult you and talk like a crazy person.
Mar 13, 2021
0
#9
llama47 wrote:
You shouldn't have selected "new" during account creation. That's what made you start at 800. You could have started at 2000.
In any case, you've gained about 400 points in ~15 games, and that is not slow, it's very fast.
100% agreed.
Mar 13, 2021
0
#10
llama47 wrote:
Theimmortalpatzer01 wrote:
Princess_Lilly wrote:
Winning a lot of games means nothing. The strength of who your opponents are is what is meaningful. I could line up 100 players at your level in a simul and win every game easily. That means far less than beating one good strong opponent.
You have a point. But unless you're accusing me of cherry picking my opponents the fault is squarely on chess.com for stalling my rating progress and pairing me with lower rated opponents. Also, I welcome the challenge anytime to find out just how "easy" you can defeat the likes of me. I've defeated players rated much higher than you many times. Thanks for the input!
PL is a recurring troll. He'll only insult you and talk like a crazy person.
Ridiculous antics lol. Real player, or pure troll?
Mar 13, 2021
0
#11
Because this comment thread is active anyone wanna play a few unranked games for fun?
PS i need to get good so cause me to lose quickly
Mar 13, 2021
0
#12
llama47 wrote:
You shouldn't have selected "new" during account creation. That's what made you start at 800. You could have started at 2000.
In any case, you've gained about 400 points in ~15 games, and that is not slow, it's very fast.
Hey @llama47, I wasn't aware that my options when I started the account determined my starting rating. You're right, 400+ point increase in 15 games is not slow. I bet I'm not the only one that chose "new" completely ignoring how it would affect the starting rating. Thanks for the information!
Also, I blocked the troll so even if she replies I think its fair to say that she doesn't warrant a reply. Her other posts are more of the same dribble.
From your point of view its not fair. But on chess.com many noobies to beginners are also joining. Like me, i from around 800 then got drop kicked to 300 then now bounced back to 900. If someone has to wait from 1200 to reach 300 to find suitable opponents who wont destroy them in 3 moves, chances of them leaving the game is very high. I guess thats the one
I think that there are more to be considered than quality of the player.
Theimmortalpatzer01
People are real friendly around here. I had account yrs back but life got busy. But made new account & just started playing & disappointed to see people like PL & The Immortal, really disrespecting other players. Completely unprovoked & reeking of narcissism. Some kindness & empathy would serve some people well. And when you accuse someone of cherry picking or attack them, maybe they might feel need to defend selves. Regardless, there's a lot of good people that used to be on here, and I'm sure many are still here and plenty of others who joined along the way I'm sure are decent people as well just looking to play, sharpen skills, and God forbid, maybe even help some people along the way. Confidence is one thing, but NOBODY likes a troll, or someone who is a jerk who feels need to always insult & complain about mere questions & the people who pose em. It's free world and I'm not for censorship at all & so they can act a fool til cows come home. But community will notice and take note. There's a dif between giving someone some harsh truths and then just being a troll or A hole. And I think we can all smell when the latter is being just that. Absolutely no need for PL & Immortal to go route they chose. But guess we all have DNA. Rating means very little til it's established and even then, nobody is unbeatable. Yet I bet those 2 think Magnus would quake in fear at thought of sitting across from them. The comedy is real at chess.com these days I can see
Sep 16, 2023
0
#18
I think the reason behind this is that chesscom doesn't want cheaters to play with IMs and GMs at 2000+ elo. With slow ranking progress they can easily detect cheaters. As the cheater doesn't have the patience to play like 100+ rapid matches with trying to lose many of them and making some blunders for camouflage.
The strong player already doesn't have a problem with ranking slowly, as it's their only account and the account may last for years thus they may even enjoy their journey. Legal speed run, why not?
idk
Why are chess.com ratings so slow to catch up to true rating of stronger players? I've won 15 of 16 rapid games with 93.8% win ratio yet chess.com (as of this writing) has me rated 1267. Shouldn't chess.com have a better algorithm to get new players to a more accurate rating within the first 15-20 games? In the long run and with my current abilities I expect to reach at least 1900+ rapid rating. At this rate I'll need another 20-30 game win streak to get there. But given expected losses as I progress in rank it might take me 40-50 games to reach a more accurate rating.
I've long wondered why so many lower rated players on chess.com are so strong relative to their ratings and think this might explain it. Maybe there is a sleuth of frustrated intermediate and above players stuck in the lower ranks wondering why they are getting demolished by every other sub 1400 player whom are similarly stuck.
For reference, USCF's mode (most common rating range) is about 1000-1100 which I think should be the starting point for all players on chess.com as well. During the first 15-20 games new players should be able to make abnormal gains or losses to quickly reach a more accurate rating. I would like to know what everyone else thinks about the chess.com rating system and why new players on the stronger side are expected to play dozens of games to reach a rating that reflects their abilities.
Why does it matter you might ask? Because many of us play elsewhere, including official rated games, and it makes no sense to have drastically different ratings to the tune of several hundred rating points. Imagine I join a new club on chess.com as a 1200 rapid player knowing that I play closer to 1900+ rating and I get called out for being some sort of cheater. Maybe the club decides to remove my score from a tournament or, worse yet, they remove me from the club due to having a suspicious rating.
Thoughts?