Originally posted by padger
To use Suzianne's idea you would have to start from scratch where everybody had a 1200
rating
How about using the 5 year average as a starting point ,
This would be the Clan Challenge Rating
I still think that challenges should be no further apart than 100 points
The only thing is that a player's own genuine rating may go up or down by more than a hundred points. If you look at individual graph lines in a player's profile you'll see this sometimes.
Some players' graphs are steady, maybe a gentle rise or a gentle slope downwards. Others' graph lines resemble a rocky mountain range with peaks and troughs. Mine is like that. It varies a lot, and the range is considerably more than a hundred points.
I never cheat. I always try very hard to win. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I agree though that vast manipulated differences, as in those notorious challenges between Strategic Ultimatum and Universitt of Chess For Fun should be totally outlawed. Oh, and whoever said that all clan members in such a case must be colluding, no, that's not the case. In that instance many SU members, like myself, were just playing for fun and never looked at clan standings as such. Once it was pointed out, yes, then some were culpable, but not necessarily so before that.
I don't think you could make a hard and fast rule that challenges should have a difference of no more than a hundred points. I love it when I can unexpectedly beat a much higher ranked player, and I have to grit my teeth and bear it when a much lower ranked player makes mincemeat of me!
Part of the joy of chess!