Confused by the ratings

I check out every potential opponents history before offering challenges for my clan members.
I don't understand the following:-
A player joined in November 2012 and has a history of 1085 1182 1182 1182.
However his graph shows a maximum rating of 1650.
The player he played on the first game on the graph has a maximium 5 year rating of 1458.
How has this player ever got up to 1650?

Originally posted by venda
I check out every potential opponents history before offering challenges for my clan members.
I don't understand the following:-
A player joined in November 2012 and has a history of 1085 1182 1182 1182.
However his graph shows a maximum rating of 1650.
The player he played on the first game on the graph has a maximium 5 year rating of 1458.
How has this player ever got up to 1650?

Can you identify the user please Dave ?

Edit: It's probably taking into account 'provisional rates'...as this user has only been here a few months, we can actually 'see' rates far beyond what the true four time related rates will ever be...basically he may have been provisionally rated 1650 shortly after he joined, but the true rate in accordance with the first, and maybe second of those you list....

Originally posted by RevRSleeker
Can you identify the user please Dave ?

Edit: It's probably taking into account 'provisional rates'...as this user has only been here a few months, we can actually 'see' rates far beyond what the true four time related rates will ever be...basically he may have been provisionally rated 1650 shortly after he joined, but the true rate in accordance with the first, and maybe second of those you list....

Hi Dean
I don't like to name players in forums as it could look like I'm accusing them of cheating or something.
I've looked thro' the players games and as far as I can see all of the games he has played are rated.
Where he has played others rated in the 1600's he has mostly lost.
The first game he played,he beat a player whose highest 5 yr rating was 1458.His rating was 1200 of course.
In the second game he played his rating leaps to 1650 in a game he won against the same player.
I agree it has to be something to do with the provisional thing but it's confusing when trying to assess a players ability.
Perhaps I should be taking more notice of the shape of the graph than the numbers quoted in the stats.

Originally posted by venda
Hi Dean
I don't like to name players in forums as it could look like I'm accusing them of cheating or something.
I've looked thro' the players games and as far as I can see all of the games he has played are rated.
Where he has played others rated in the 1600's he has mostly lost.
The first game he played,he beat a player whose highest 5 yr rating was 1458 ...[text shortened]... ould be taking more notice of the shape of the graph than the numbers quoted in the stats.

Hi again Dave, I can understand the 'not wanting to name' thing, no worries...
my own rule of thumb was that you can only 'assess' what is assessable, in your case he \ she has only been here for 3mths, if you were looking at a player with 12mths of stats you certainly wouldn't consider his provisional rates as the average rate take everything into account ( including the maths that does away with the 15-20 initial game rates )...in your case the 90day rate is the true guide as all the rest are really quite useless lol...
To be honest it sounds like you'll have to weigh up as much his 'opponents rate' stats, in the last 90days, as his own...maybe the rate somewhere in between opponents and his own rate is 'fair' for challenges !?

Originally posted by venda
.. it's confusing when trying to assess a players ability.

Why do you want to know a player's ability.
Given a position do you play different moves against different grades?

Surely you should always play the best move youe see.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Why do you want to know a player's ability.
Given a position do you play different moves against different grades?

Surely you should always play the best move youe see.

OP is a clan leader, he has to make sure he's matching fairly and not against sandbaggers or other rating-fiddlers.

Originally posted by Kewpie
OP is a clan leader, he has to make sure he's matching fairly and not against sandbaggers or other rating-fiddlers.

Correct my friend and thanks.
After noticing the first example, I've seen other players with "ski slope" graphs so the anomaly is not unique and must be somethiong to do with the provisional rating -i.e. the 1st 20 games.
Btw whose op?

Originally posted by venda
Btw whose op?

I think OP = Original Poster.

Originally posted by venda
Correct my friend and thanks.
After noticing the first example, I've seen other players with "ski slope" graphs so the anomaly is not unique and must be somethiong to do with the provisional rating -i.e. the 1st 20 games.
Btw whose op?

OP means the person who started the thread. In this case, it is you.

Originally posted by mwmiller
I think OP = Original Poster.

Right thanks.
I'm only just picking up on these text speak abbreviations that the youngsters use.
I don't use facelift or mutter
I'm a 60 yr old dinosaur and I've just learnd what "btw" means
For ages I thought "lol" was somone called Lawrence.

Apparently, if a player wins his first game, gets 400 points on top of the the other player's rating.
Because it goes so high and the player is usually playing against lower rating players, the second game is likely to come down, even if the player wins again.
Hope to have been of help.

Originally posted by jmc000
Apparently, if a player wins his first game, gets 400 points on top of the the other player's rating.
Because it goes so high and the player is usually playing against lower rating players, the second game is likely to come down, even if the player wins again.
Hope to have been of help.

Any win by the player in his first 20 games will be considered as a victory over the opponent's rating points + 400.

Originally posted by Sebastian Yap
Any win by the player in his first 20 games will be considered as a victory over the opponent's rating points + 400.

I think that may be the first 5 games, the calculation method changes at that point.

Originally posted by jmc000
Apparently, if a player wins his first game, gets 400 points on top of the the other player's rating.
Because it goes so high and the player is usually playing against lower rating players, the second game is likely to come down, even if the player wins again.
Hope to have been of help.

Thanks.
Didn't know about that and it explains a lot.

My confusion cones by way of; I mated an opponent and did not get a rating increase nor did they get a decrease and the game is locked. Who do you talk to