Small Updates and Fixes
Sort:
I have to say that 1500 is not an average rating. It is just 1500 and nothing more :).
Don1 wrote: tonightonly7 wrote: Reservesmonkey wrote: That's an awesome feature, makes me feel better about my rating. Interesting how it's almost a perfect bell curve. Does this indicate starting rating should be 1300?
I don't think a beginner should be rated as an average player. They should definitely not be at 1500.
why not, we're all going to get where we're going(ratings-wise)? how does one know if a newbie to the site is a beginner or a GM, unless we'd give the option to select our own starting rating? if you start everyone newbie at 1500 the ratings(chart) would be more balanced & representive for the entire community(site members playing [turn-based or other] chess).
I didn't think that a beginner at the game should be rated as an average player. You responded by saying that a beginner on chess.com is not necessarily a beginner at chess, which is true. I had a long slog up to my 2000 rating, and have only recently encountered interesting games and losses. But if your argument is that there is no way to tell the strength of a chess.com newcomer, than wouldn't any number be as good as any other? In which case we might as well stick with 1200. I don't understand how 1500 would be more balanced and representative. Maybe I am missing something.
wouldn't any number be as good as any other? In which case we might as well stick with 1200. I don't understand how 1500 would be more balanced and representative. Maybe I am missing something.
correct. :)
if the average was at 1500 the chart(& ratings) would be more fairly disturbuted over the 0-3000 spectrum(maybe make a more beautiful graph). maybe i've been watching to much Monk. But even the original(super_Elo) base formula for calculating the ratings uses 1500 & the USCF balances on 1500, i'm not sure about FIDE. it well mostly affect the middle of the pack if the average and/or starting ratings were set at 1500. PS: i don't think a GM should start at 1200, either!
If there is a GM who gets verified and we know who they are then we do not start them at 1200 but preset them much higher so that it keeps the ratings accurate.
MattHelfst wrote: If there is a GM who gets verified and we know who they are then we do not start them at 1200 but preset them much higher so that it keeps the ratings accurate.
thanks Matt i didn't know that, but i was actually speaking more theoretical (top player) like #1 Jeff18 who now has a 2400+ rating and started at 1200. Why not start in the middle(1500) and balance(average) there as well?
I don't think a beginner should be rated as an average player. They should definitely not be at 1500.
why not, we're all going to get where we're going(ratings-wise)? how does one know if a newbie to the site is a beginner or a GM, unless we'd give the option to select our own starting rating? if you start everyone newbie at 1500 the ratings(chart) would be more balanced & representive for the entire community(site members playing [turn-based or other] chess).