recently, i've noticed that antichess ratings are generally higher than when i first got to be what i would say is an elite player (not sure how long but i think about 1.5 years ago). like seeing 30 people with 2300+ rating and needing 2150 for top 100 instead of like 2050. so yeah just wondering feel free to share any opinions you have on this
Remember the 2600s? Yeah. Nothing more to say.
lol i wasnt around or at least not active then.
Rating fluctuations are tricky for sure, some old players are retiring, new players joining in and it happens dynamically everyday, meaning average ratings go up and down. However, don't get discouraged by overrated/underrated ratings, as they simply show relative strength as compared to other players (Your estimated strength). But, sometimes low rated player can play a very good game,but on the other hand,good player can make just 1 blunder and lose the game, so in my opinion, it's recommended to focus on position that arises in the game,not rating :). For this very reason, i have ratings visibility disabled in my profile.
Speaking of #2 post, yes,there was such a thing as highly rated opponents as couple 2500-2800s in variants. Atomic wasn't an exception. But, a lot of these good players have quit, making overall rating go down pretty dramatically. But, addressing your point that antichess ratings are a bit higher than they used to, means that possibly some old players came back or, newer players quitting, making rating exchange spikes richer than usual :)
Speaking of #2 post, yes,there was such a thing as highly rated opponents as couple 2500-2800s in variants. Atomic wasn't an exception. But, a lot of these good players have quit, making overall rating go down pretty dramatically. But, addressing your point that antichess ratings are a bit higher than they used to, means that possibly some old players came back or, newer players quitting, making rating exchange spikes richer than usual :)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.