rating calculated at beginning or end.

I started a game with someone that had a rating of ~1300 and while our game has proceeded his ranking has fallen to ~1050. If i win the game will the 1300 be used or the 1050, in the calculations.

Whatever it is at the finish.

edit. false information.

sorry

Don't listen to celticcountry, he is just trying to confuse you. The ratings at the end of the game are used to calculate the new ratings.

oh. i thought there was a vote a little while ago and itr was decided to go from the begining. sorry.

It doesn't seem fair that a player can manipulate his rating and thus affect his opponents rating loss or gain. And for that reason I would have voted for the calculation to be from the start ratings.
Maybe we will have a revote this year.

i dont think you were vote enabled.

Originally posted by celticcountry
i dont think you were vote enabled.

Ah, good thinking Batman. 🙂

Thanks for the information
and i will add that i must agree that i should be at the beginning of the game not the end. So it goes.

It can't be done using beginning ratings since this is a CC site and the games take forever to finish compared to OTB games.

Search around and you will find the solution.

Originally posted by RahimK
It can't be done using beginning ratings since this is a CC site and the games take forever to finish compared to OTB games.

So you are saying it can't be done because the games take a long time to finish, sometimes. I can't see how that means it can't be done.....if that was true why did they bother having a vote on it. IMO the best idea would be to use the average rating over the time the game was played.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
So you are saying it can't be done [b] because the games take a long time to finish, sometimes. I can't see how that means it can't be done.....if that was true why did they bother having a vote on it. IMO the best idea would be to use the average rating over the time the game was played.[/b]

It's a good alternative but it wasn't an option in the vote.

As for having the score taken at the start of the game. IMO, it only needs 1 scenario to show why it wouldn't work. A 2000 player goes down to 1000. He starts 100 games against 1800s. After winning those 100 games, and winning 32 points for each, he is now rated 4200.

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
A 2000 player goes down to 1000. He starts 100 games against 1800s. After winning those 100 games, and winning 32 points for each, he is now rated 4200.

But,am I not right in thinking that as his rating went up the points awarded would decrease, enough that when he reached 2000 against 1800 he would only be receiving 6 or 7 points. And it would continue to diminish the higher he got until he would be getting zero for beating a player something like 4-500 points below him.
Thats the way I understand anyhow.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
But,am I not right in thinking that as his rating went up the points awarded would decrease, enough that when he reached 2000 against 1800 he would only be receiving 6 or 7 points. And it would continue to diminish the higher he got until he would be getting zero for beating a player something like 4-500 points below him.
Thats the way I understand anyhow.

Not if he starts all the games at once, and rating points are awarded based on the ratings at the start of the games.

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Not if he starts all the games at once, and rating points are awarded based on the ratings at the start of the games.

D

Yeah that's true. Average would be fairest then methinks, but too much aggro to set up I guess.