Losing rating points is easier than gaining them??

@Hitsugaya said in #2:

For me most players I'll face will be lower rated and will basically gives me little or no points for a win which means that most of my time is lost just for maintaining a rating.

This is why I prefer to look at win:loss ratio rather than rating.

@petri999 said in #17:

We could make absolute reference with engine sure... But then we would need to use same engine for ever. And I am very sure there has not deflation in ratings lately. on contrary I would 1500 today is weaker than 1500 before pandemic. Proving that would take effort well beyond what I am willing put into it

I am saying that even with engine we don't have such an external referential, as they are also measured the same way. There is no way to know in what corner of chess space the competition may have raced toward.... if no competition outside that region ever comes in the pool under competition (like at SF8 version, a0 came into picture from another angle, exposing the subspace blindspot that NNue did patch up for now, by making an extra extension search at variation tips with low classical static evaluation signal).

That is why, i was thinking of how to build an external referential measure system. BTW my hunch is that TB land offers such laboratory, and it covers all of legal chess space as initial conditions, not just perfect continuation of standard initial position all the way to 7 men material attritioned positions of the TB possibilities.

But really, I think decomposing ratings into multidimensional skill measure, like elometer, or even puzzle systems for some restriction tactical skill subspace, might be some more human compatible way to build an external measure system. even if scaffolded initially from competitive measure, it could end up having its own stable scaling system.... i don't know how in details.... but I suspect one could try.

also i gave myself license to speak in abstract. i would also not have the time or energy to figure out all the technical hurdles toward implementing such ideas. But that does not mean one can't consider the possible frameworks... (another wheel thing....).

It is easier to lose intentionally than to win intentionally.
But as normally we play to win, this does not apply, and it is as easy to win rating as losing it. If you lose a game by a blunder, you may win the next profiting from one.
When I play, it is exactly as easy to win points as to lose them..
I took a break from blitz and then won two games and got rewarded by bigger leaps in rating, because the system considers ratings that are not backed up by regular play as as vague as new players' ratings. Then I lost two games and lept right back where I came from.
The only way in that it is true for me- that losing rating points is easier than gaining them- is:
It is harder for me to stop playing on tilt than it is continuing scoring when on a little winning streak. And that may be a serious issue for some. (But, also, the more general an issue this was, the more often we ourselves profit from easy wins against someone on tilt).

@Aragorn-Elessar said in #4:

@SchizoSi You have a good rating. It's easy for you to gain rating, as long as you win against opponents with similar or higher rating. And yes, you might lose a lot of rating, but it's because you deserved it for losing. But overall, I think the rating system is all good for you. Just win more, and you won't be complaining about this anymore.

But that's just my opinion. Ignore it if you don't like what I said.
16000-1800 rating may be good considering percentile,but still 60% is about tactics and not strategy

@ak_saha said in #24:

16000-1800 rating may be good considering percentile,but still 60% is about tactics and not strategy

But looking at percentiles can be misleading.
For instance, if we count literally everyone in the world (including children, homeless people or people on benefits, people in third world countries, etc) then I'd probably be in, or at least close to, the top 5% when it comes to wealth. But having a few thousand pounds sterling is nowhere near rich.

To DESTROY is always easier than to CONSTRUCT.

ELO is like sand at the sea.
Question is not: "Am I judged fairly?"
At the end of the day - did you enjoyed the games you played?
If I gave my best performance, and lost -
I can be proud. It's sports.
You win games or lose them.
There will always be someone better.
Handle it and stay lucky. Or sane, at least :-)

My today's horrible Crazyhouse statistics: I won 4 games, but lost 6 games. Result: - 96 points! When that is fair, I am Magnus Carlsen.