~~admw~~Anto12 May '04 19:07Here's an idea but I don't know how to explain it very well so here it goes. How about if you play a chess match and both players can gamble a chosen amount of rating. Example a match between 2 people, doesn't matter about the rating, and there is a gamble of 50 rating points. The winner of the match will get 50 points added onto his/her rating and the opponent - loser - will lose 50 points from his/her rating. How about that?- 12 May '04 19:34

can't be messing up the ratings like that... someone would play for 100 points per game playing 1000 rated people and be rated 2100 when they are done.*Originally posted by admw***Here's an idea but I don't know how to explain it very well so here it goes. How about if you play a chess match and both players can gamble a chosen amount of rating. Example a match between 2 people, doesn't matter about the rating, and there is a gamble of 50 rating points. The winner of the match will get 50 points added onto his/her rating and the opponent - loser - will lose 50 points from his/her rating. How about that?**

It sounds fun, but it shouldn't be done... the ratings reflect how good (or bad?!) we are.

P- - 12 May '04 20:44The rating is a number related to a probability of winning. If your rating is 2000 and my is 1300, then there's some probability that, if I'm silly enought to play with you, that you will crush me. In some sense, the rating is a measure of the "chess strength" of the player. The higher rating, the stronger at chess a player is.

Enabling people to "gamble" ratings points will make the ratings meaningles. You can be rated 2000 because you, at the low rating of 1200, gambled 800 points with a 810-rated player, and won. You are not 2000-points strong, you have 800 points that you do not deserve, that are not justified by you "chess strength".

Sorry for the "engrish". ~~admw~~Anto13 May '04 19:22

I suppose that there could be limits to how much rating could be gambled and you have the choice to play who you want, you won't have to play someone who's about 5000 points on rating higher than you, anyway. So what do you think, anyone?*Originally posted by cesarakg***The rating is a number related to a probability of winning. If your rating is 2000 and my is 1300, then there's some probability that, if I'm silly enought to play with you, that you will crush me. In some sense, the rating is a measure of the "chess strength" of the player. The higher rating, the stronger at chess a player is.**

Enabling people to "g ...[text shortened]... do not deserve, that are not justified by you "chess strength".

Sorry for the "engrish".~~admw~~Anto16 May '04 10:25

Sorry 500 points, so how about it?*Originally posted by admw***I suppose that there could be limits to how much rating could be gambled and you have the choice to play who you want, you won't have to play someone who's about 5000 points on rating higher than you, anyway. So what do you think, anyone?**- 16 May '04 11:29 / 1 edit

(chirp) (chirp) (chirp)*Originally posted by admw***Sorry 500 points, so how about it?**

Oh sorry, I was distracted by the sound of the crickets chirping.

Anyway, the problem with this idea, other than the fact that it tampers with a ratings system that is based on a very specific mathematical formula, is that it really does nothing to actually improve your level of play. When you make the suggestion that it would be better if we could choose to gamble more points in order to gain more points and make our ratings higher, you completely miss the point of the ratings system. It exists to give players a very good approximation of their playing strength relative to other players. In other words, it is the means to an end, not the end itself. Your suggestion would appeal more so to players that care more about making the number next to their name get bigger than they do about actually improving their play. ~~admw~~Anto17 May '04 14:38

It was just an idea.*Originally posted by Natural Science***(chirp) (chirp) (chirp)**

Oh sorry, I was distracted by the sound of the crickets chirping.

Anyway, the problem with this idea, other than the fact that it tampers with a ratings system that is based on a very specific mathematical formula, is that it really does nothing to actually improve your level of play. When you make the suggestion ...[text shortened]... ing the number next to their name get bigger than they do about actually improving their play.- 17 May '04 17:32

Take it easy. He is right. The rating system is conceived as a means to an end, and the objective of it is to give to the chess player some idea of their chess strenght.*Originally posted by admw***It was just an idea.**

On the other side, I know about a chess site that has "virtual gifts" that can be given (earned?). Maybe this can be done: a set of virtual gifts (subscribers get new itens every month, as a "virtual gift" from the site, but also can buy it from the site, and can gamble it in games or give it as gifts to other players, "virtual gifts" or medals can be given to players that complete 10, 50, 100, 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500 -- and so on -- games in the site). ~~admw~~Anto18 May '04 11:50

Itens?*Originally posted by cesarakg***Take it easy. He is right. The rating system is conceived as a means to an end, and the objective of it is to give to the chess player some idea of their chess strenght.**

On the other side, I know about a chess site that has "virtual gifts" that can be given (earned?). Maybe this can be done: a set of virtual gifts (subscribers get new itens every month ...[text shortened]... complete 10, 50, 100, 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500 -- and so on -- games in the site).~~admw~~Anto~~admw~~Anto18 May '04 16:19I still think that it is a good idea. The ratings are just next to your name and I know that it gives you an estimate of how good you are but I think that it would be a bit more fun if you know how much rating you are going to win/lose. There's no harm in that is there? I also know that there is a complicated formula to work out your rating but if there is a way to gamble a certain amount of rating points then I think that it would be good.