*Originally posted by techsouth*

**I don't see what is wrong with the rating.
**

If I play only play players 200 points below me, I have a 75% chance of winning each game and get 8 points for a win, but lose 24 points for a loss.

I win 3 out of 4 games, but my average does not change over the long haul. If I win more than 3 out of 4 games, then perhaps I am better than 200 points higher ...[text shortened]... dies that show a player can inflate his theoretical true rating by playing more weak opponents?

The rating should mirror the true skill. It isn't. An average even more less.

I can live with a rating with its flaws, because I can easily see at his rating graph and build an opinion about his skill. Much better than any average can show.

Let's say that someone let all his hundred of games go to time out. How does a single average value show that? When he's up again to his true level of rating, what does the average say?

If you rely on the average, and average only, then you often get misinformed. But the graph says it all.

But I don't mind if Russ et al show us a rating, but I'm not interested because I cannot trust it. I rather glance at the graph. It gives more information.