Chess ratings became a way to rank dating profiles
The formula is the Elo rating system, developed for competitive chess. In chess, a player’s rating estimates their strength relative to other players. After a match, both ratings shift: beating someone expected to win earns little; an upset earns more. The system does not need to compare every player directly—it updates its estimate from each result.
Dating apps adapted that logic to profile interactions. Instead of chess victories, the system could treat signals such as users’ choices about whose profile to like as evidence about how profiles ranked in the app’s pool. A profile’s rating could then help determine which other profiles a person was shown.
A score can shape the experience it measures
That creates a feedback loop. Profiles shown more often have more chances to receive likes, and those responses can influence who sees them next. A rating may therefore reflect not just individual preferences but also the app’s earlier decisions about visibility. Two people might never encounter each other, even though their choices could have informed the system if they had.
The approach also drew controversy because a chess-style number can make a messy social judgment look like an objective ranking of people. A matchmaking score is not a measure of someone’s worth or a guarantee of compatibility; it is an estimate built from app behavior and whatever signals the service chooses to use. The memorable twist is that a system designed to predict chess results could also help decide which strangers get the chance to meet.
