At the risk of beating a dead horse, and reiterating Clarkey, ratings do not measure objective playing strength. They just don't.
It's not as thought being '1600' means some exact level of play, and rating systems differ in how accurate they are.
Rating systems capture relative strength, i.e., your strength relative to the other players in the system.
That's all they do; a given rating difference corresponds to a particular expected score in a match between those players (for example, a rating difference of 70 points corresponds to an expected score of about 60% for the higher rated player).
So, if two sites both use Glicko-2, AND use all the same starting parameters, and on one site your rating playing G/30 is 1600, and on the other it's 1900, that means exactly one thing.
That one thing is that the average strength of the players on the site where you're 1600 is higher than the average strength of the players on the site where you're 1900.
Neither rating is inaccurate, or inflated, or deflated. They both capture your strength relative to other players in that system based on your performances to date.
That's it. Ratings simply don't measure an independent, objective level of play.
Hopefully that's a helpful explanation :)
It's not as thought being '1600' means some exact level of play, and rating systems differ in how accurate they are.
Rating systems capture relative strength, i.e., your strength relative to the other players in the system.
That's all they do; a given rating difference corresponds to a particular expected score in a match between those players (for example, a rating difference of 70 points corresponds to an expected score of about 60% for the higher rated player).
So, if two sites both use Glicko-2, AND use all the same starting parameters, and on one site your rating playing G/30 is 1600, and on the other it's 1900, that means exactly one thing.
That one thing is that the average strength of the players on the site where you're 1600 is higher than the average strength of the players on the site where you're 1900.
Neither rating is inaccurate, or inflated, or deflated. They both capture your strength relative to other players in that system based on your performances to date.
That's it. Ratings simply don't measure an independent, objective level of play.
Hopefully that's a helpful explanation :)