"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:03:14 -0500, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
wrote:

It seems to me that ratings of roughly 1000 and below are unstable and
relatively untrustworthy because it doesn't take that much study and
practice to improve enough to gain hundreds of rating points. Think
about going from 1000 to 1400 versus going from 1900 to 2300.

Mike is right about instability of ratings below 1000. I failed to mention
that my next rating after 969 was 1530, earned after playing in a few
tournaments in mid-late 1968.

We've had a bunch of 900-1300 players come through our club. I assure you
they know MUCH more than simply how to move the pieces. My two daughters
know little more than how the pieces move, and their ratings are in the
500s
I believe.

The question of ratings for adults who have just learned the moves
could be answered experimentally -- teach a few adults the rules of
the game and then plop 'em in a tournament with a mix of other adult
players with established ratings in the range of, say, 600 - 1200.
Have some prizes, big enough to motivate people. Might be a better
use of our money for the USCF to underwrite something like this,
rather than dumping 50 grand on consultants.

I again agree with Angelo -- my bet is on the ratings being somewhere
in the 500s, nowhere near 1000.

Ken Sloan beats me hands down when it comes to understanding the rating
system, but I know much more than he does about practical play and player
strength. 1000-strength players know considerably more than how to move the
pieces.