Maybe a small idea.

Originally posted by Dalamar
I see your point.
However, what if you decided that all captured pieces would be counted then? regardless of win or loss?
Now I can just see you will counter with then they will play just to take pieces, ruining the game. That is a fair statement, but I think that it can be rectified.

You get points for taking pieces, but add a bonus of 50 (just a sugge ...[text shortened]... ed - 10, and winners get what they captured + 50 (just a suggestion)

How about that Idea?
🙂

I must say that I think this would encourage people to, when in a winning position, to spend many moves picking off the oponents remaining pieces instead of finishing the game. This will reduce the quality of chess and the enjoyment of the game. Wouldn't people also start getting annoyed when an opponent resigns, because that is cheating them of the points the could have gained?
My dream game is where I sacrafice my queen to secure a mate - it just seems artictic to me (OK, it would be flashy). This scoring system would discourage this. I think this kind of rating would penalise the clever play, where you catch your opponent sneakily instead of bludgening him to death.

I still don't get why people are so worried about ratings. They're not that accurate, and are only there to give you an idea about how you are doing & how good your opponent is. Sure, it's nice to see yourself go up but people shouldn't get too hung up on them.

Yep - when you're swimming in the little pond are far as ratings are concerned, they are pretty meaningless in the big scheme of things. Does it matter if you are the 1500th or 1501st rated player on the site?
I think that improving your rating should be something to strive for because it should go hand in glove with playing better chess but, as you say, not something to get hung up on.

Rhymester

I was wondering...is there currently a way to pay for more than 1 year at a time? Are record kept such that if I pay for another subscription with my current log in and email, that another year will be added to my subscription?

I agree that the tables are not something to get hung up on, but I still think that they are a nice element in RHP. I also still think that a "Most Improved Player of The Month" would be a good compromise with the ideas we have here. I maintain that it would be such a thing that it would be very hard to "try" to get on this table by doing anything other than making a big effort to get better.

Originally posted by Omnislash
I agree that the tables are not something to get hung up on, but I still think that they are a nice element in RHP. I also still think that a "Most Improved Player of The Month" would be a good compromise with the ideas we have here. I maintain that it would be such a thing that it would be very hard to "try" to get on this table by doing anything other than making a big effort to get better.

or by resigning a load of games, then playing lots of people you know you can beat...
Surely the most improved player each month would always be a newbi who is good, because they'll shoot from 1200 to much higher very fast.
I'm not trying to knock your ideas - just talking them through..

I do not have a problem with the tables that is there at the moment. and One have to accept that Only 20 players can be in the top 20 no mater what you do or how you calculate the table. What I will realy like is it i could see a table displaying the ten players above and belo me. so If I am number 1600 it will display 1590 to 1610 that may make it easy to find a player that may be a good oponent to play.

590 & 1610 it might well give you more than Originally posted by pierrek
I do not have a problem with the tables that is there at the moment. and One have to accept that Only 20 players can be in the top 20 no mater what you do or how you calculate the table. What I will realy like is it i could see a table displaying the ten players above and belo me. so If I am number 1600 it will display 1590 to 1610 that may make it easy to find a player that may be a good oponent to play.

Now that's a good idea, to be abel to see more players around your rating. But if you wanted to see all those between 1590 & 1610 it might well give you more than 10 players. Some way to scroll through the players in ratingorder would work, but might not be practical.
For now you could try searching for players in "find player" between the ratings you are interested in.