Rating limit?

Hard to know as they are not open source. But by and large there is no need for upper limit. So I dont think they have it.

Even the FICS which the another branch of first evet interner chess server does not have its code in opensource.

Yes but think that if you play somone 500 points below you, yuo would get about 1 point...

@dboing #18 So, in all your reading of this paper did it explain if there is ever a limit that a rating could not go higher than?

@Rookie_Balboa Chess.com limit rating is 65535 (look www.chess.com/stats/puzzles/alyurfed)

@LDog11 Obvisously the paper has no upper limit. Model was designed by a chess player but is not limitted to chess. I woudl be just silly to have some artificial limit on upper bound on rating. Or even range where rating are. Would far more logical to have rating so that midkle pointi 0 not 1500. That is just chess habit based some age old rating system in usa.

#25 From my reading the is no explicit limit assumed and injected in the algorithm.
The only entrants are the individual average rating, its standard deviation (and both possibly time dependent to account for rating progression, and volatility dynamics, already caricatured if that was readable).

I suspect that all that this could mathematically imply would be some control over the large number (and enough time for sampling to settle to stationary, meaning no evolution of proportion of progressors, and their quitting the pool being balanced by other entering the pool, or maybe large enough number so those perturbations would be like the hundreds bumps i the rating distributed for the week scale fast chess category, and not affect the envelop of the distribution.

So large number limit. not rating limit. But like #25 said. what is likely provable or controllable by the algorithm is likely to be similar to what went in the definition of the statistics. Average and Std deviation (first and second moment).

And the paper i read seemed to be an off-shoot of a thesis by Glickman, chess player, but that is not a professional identity for everybody, and the mathematics and the paper itself was not like the lichess link (or i got confused) or wikipedia presentation, which only state how to compute, and was the emerging constants are.

I could write down the exact reference. it came from his website. his bibliography. seem peer review from statistics journal I think. And seems complete to me as self-contained paper, and using typical statistician notation with probabilities. Not the full math notation from set theory. But I could translate into multivariate functional version, as probabilities are also functions, and can be themselves considered as dynamically evolving. or even interacting... Not just a chess player writing in that paper.

Glickman, Mark E.,
"Parameter estimation in large dynamic paired comparison experiments" (1999) Applied Statistics, 48, 377-394.
http://www.glicko.net/research/glicko.pdf
This paper describes the technical details of the "Glicko" rating system
- for a more condensed and less technical discussion, you might want to look at this paper.
http://www.glicko.net/research/gdescrip.pdf

Quoted verbatim (link injected) from website:
http://www.glicko.net/research.html

The above is the one i started reading. I assume the essence of the ideas would be best explained there. But the current lichess rating system is based on a variant or improvement on that, with apparently less-deterministic volatility model (must still be an assumption on the prior individual rating belief (or probability density of rating), that makes the emergent behaviour more to our liking or robust, like the 1500, or other invariants found so far).

Probably still no explicit bounds of the rating averages themselves either in the assumptions or in the predictions of large population limit distribution of those averages. i.e. no assumption of finite bound of the values possible. Gaussians and normal distribution of one variables have the whole real line as domain, and support. (where not zero).

Yes statistics of statistics.. integrals of integrals on a measurable set (real value, float). or Average (frequentist) of Expectation (could be Bayesian) of individual rating. i prefer to see a bunch of parameterized Gaussians flying around like gas molecules and colliding. But it is not a well mixed tank. so not a gaz or liquid... a chess server community ?

Glickman, Mark E., "Dynamic paired comparison models with stochastic variances" (2001), Journal of Applied Statistics, 28, 673-689. This paper describes the technical details of the Glicko-2 rating system. Click here for a more condensed version with a worked-out example.
http://www.glicko.net/research/dpcmsv.pdf
http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko2.pdf

By the way, i think the link on lichess blog or Faq, or was it github, is broken... Here from above posted web site.