tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4459360717297142573.post7252764061705774407..comments2024-03-27T20:44:56.139+11:00Comments on chessexpress: FIDE Ratings down to 1000Shaun Presshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00897215011002594039noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4459360717297142573.post-57947740474684287112011-06-10T13:19:37.097+10:002011-06-10T13:19:37.097+10:00Why not abandon Glicko and use FIDE ratings only? ...Why not abandon Glicko and use FIDE ratings only? The ACF could operate a mirror system and publish those ratings below 1000.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4459360717297142573.post-76157510262078949992011-06-09T23:05:14.564+10:002011-06-09T23:05:14.564+10:00Ratings are subjective at best and a lot of chess ...Ratings are subjective at best and a lot of chess players live and die by their ratings. I see it in tournaments all of the time.Paulhttp://SHadowofDiogenes.blogs.com/shadow/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4459360717297142573.post-68153065357631789992011-06-09T20:15:47.577+10:002011-06-09T20:15:47.577+10:00Why not go lower? Well low ratings are more likely...Why not go lower? Well low ratings are more likely to be inaccurate as players improve rapidly but their ratings only catch up as they play enough rated games. If you have a small number of inaccurate ratings the large pool of accurate ratings tends to fix them, on the other hand if there is a large pool of inaccurate ratings they randomise the accurate ratings.<br /><br />In fact this will probably happen already with the 1000 floor, there aren't a lot of career 1000 players.Ian Routnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4459360717297142573.post-64497006858506126112011-06-09T13:05:00.283+10:002011-06-09T13:05:00.283+10:00Why not go lower?Why not go lower?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com