This will make the ratings more accurate...

you might lose 2 rating points but your opponent wont gain any.. that happened to me once, where my opponent lost a rating point but i never gained..

True that you should gain alot of rating points when you first start, but make it atleast 50 point gain the most.. cause if your 1200 rated when you start and you ebat a 2100 rated person.. doesnt that deserve some rating points?

I have not been here very long but I have won games where I gained 0 points.

I have played with the USCF for quite a long time before I stopped playing.  I can never remember ever NOT gaining at least one point for a win.

I think the Glicko system thy have here helps eliminate a gain in points on all wins. I am not sure.

I do know, however, that when a person has a provisional rating his/her rating does go up and down by large numbers until a regular rating is reached.  In the USCF I belive a person is considered provisional until completing 20 games.  On most sites they have a similar number.  I think it is the sam here but not sure without looking it up.

Chuck

What you're talking about is not ratings inflation. Ratings are relative to other people in the same rating pool. They are only relevant within the pool of players being rated. USCF and Chess.com are two completely different pools, and you can't compare the ratings between the two.

While the persistence is admirable, you do know that you won't every fully correct this misperception, right?  What's important is that the staff here get it and arbitrary changes like this won't even be considered.

LOL. Maybe I should take the offensive, go for a more proactive approach to the misconception. You know, make a post every month pointing out how this is wrong.

Chess.com doesn't use the Elo system, so that's irrelevant.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, rating is a number that represents your location on a curve.  The actual number of points doesn't really mean anything except to show your relative position against opponents of the same group.

Well, since the misconceptions continue, maybe it's time that Chess.com goes to a reward-based rating system, rather than a strength-based one.

I don't think you understand what causes inflation.  For every point gained there is a point lost -- it's a zero sum game where the average rating is always the starting rating, that is until someone leaves.  The number of points that change hands is incidental -- ELO is not immune to inflation.

In fact, the Elo system is a special case of the Glicko system that Chess.com is using.

It has nothing to do with that.

Sure we know. We know you don't understand the ratings. We could switch to the exact same system that Yahoo uses (whatever it is), and your rating here still wouldn't match your Yahoo rating.

We should all be able to have our own "Rating Offset" in our settings. The offset would be added to every rating you ever see on the site.

Think chess.com ratings are 200 points too high? Enter "-200" in your settings. Want to feel like a GM? Put "1000".

The resulting ratings are exactly as valid as the current ones, too. In fact to make a point I'd suggest to give them random initial values between 0 and 10,000...

i think the rating system should be as close to the uscf's system that way a player really knows his/hers true rating.....

No. As has been said a lot of times, even if you use exactly the same system with all the numbers exactly the same, the ratings will still be wildly different.

There is no such thing as a universal true rating.

USCF (whatever that means) is probably a true rating in a closed system.

Your chess.com ratings are also true ratings in  different closed systems.

That is why, even on this site, you have different ratings for Live, Online, 960 etc. They are different from each other. Some are better at blitz than online, some are better at online than blitz.

Some would be better at USCF rules (time controls, etc) Some are better at online. While there should be a correlation, striving for parity is just silly.

Don't know how to say it clearer than this.