Sick to death of being paired with 1500?

@sheckley666 heheheh, but no. I'm serious.

In this case: It's a really useless suggestion. Only effect would be that all ratings will drop by 800 points over the next years. Except, you convince me that today's beginners are 800 points worse than the starters from the past.

I think if I start at 800 I will again achieve 1500. Which is statistically average. I am an average player. So I will land there regardless of where I start.

How about the other direction then???? How about we all start at 3000. Do you think I would end up at 2200? I don't. I would slowly but surely sink to......(wait for it).....average.

================

Not on topic, but check out this cool captcha -



Loved it.

@killF7 @sheckley666
Is it so that to preserve the existing ratings and rating relations you have to start everyone at the center of gravity? If that was true 700 as a starter would mean, after some time, magnus and friends would float at ~1477 and aforementioned shark pool could be found around 625 ;( ;)

Agreed, ungewichtet.
There wont be a perfect starting rating number, as there will always be people playing in that rating range permanentely.
In my experience, I had no chances when I was facing provisionals rated 2000-2400 in bullet or blitz.
The funny thing was Chess960 titled arena, with so many new players who joined that "variant", and several GMs started with 1500? there, faced each other and almost dropped below 1k after 2 games lost in the row :0

This is an even bigger problem in fisher random because a much higher % is trying it for the first time and they could be of any strength. I usually play them, but there is no real consequence for not playing them -- I've never had a short term ban.

@ungewichtet it took me awhile but I finally understood your point. I'm assuming that 1500 is based on a level of play. That's not the case. You are right.

Ah well, I go back to finding a solution for the world. Give me time, that's all I need.