I am not sure why you say dose of reality. Lots of people know how they match up with players in their area.
There is a big difference between 200 games and 1,000 games.
Mike has said 200 games is enough to establish a rating.
Why would you say it is hard to rate someone without watching thousands of games?
I have seen thousands of games in my area and it appears to be accurate for the 690+ players but everyone else is all over the place.
If I see a tournament advertised as below 580 with minimum 200 games and then get there and they say "Sorry, you play better than that. Have a nice drive home." I am going to be really upset.
People seem to over estimate their own abilities and it is an eye opener to know where you really are.
Accurate for 690+ and not the others? I don't know how you can come to that conclusion. The 690 uses the same formula as the 300 and they are connected through games in the system.
Mike can answer your question. He explains things beautifully
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk