If you're a 1700 player and you beat a 2400, why does your elo only increase by about 12?

It's making it increasingly difficult to improve your elo even when you beat really strong players. If you beat someone who is 700 elo rated higher, you should get at least 50 elo as a reward as it only happens once in a blue moon. If a player tilts and they go from 1800 to 1650 which happened to my friend, It's really hard to get back up even though her real strength is around the 1900 mark. I've found that from 1650 - 1900, the playing strength in bullet is pretty much equal but the elo reward is so small that it's such a struggle to improve rating.

There has to be a good reason for this. I assume it is to keep the matchmaking more accurate.

Maybe to discourage cheating. A 700 point upset is rather suspicious. I would never play anyone down that many rating points for that very reason.

If you have a low RD, changes in rating occur more slowly, but it also means the estimation of you playing strength is more accurate.

If your friend is having trouble beating 1600s then that is your friend's strength. Someone saying they're a 1800 or 1900 who is stuck in the 1600s is just someone lying to themselves.

If OTB a (grown-up) player with 1000 Elo beat Magnus Carlsen: He only would get 20 Elo points. Correct me, if I'm wrong.
This prevents single spikes to distort the rating system.

In FIDE 20 points is maximum and on strong players 12 is maximum. Anyway singel game shoudl not give changes like 50 points. There is plenty of evidence from previous games on players strength so outlier like winning someone 700 points stronger cannot "tilt" the system. If you are lot stronger than your "number" rating will go up. and here people play so many games that system will catch up for sure

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.