03 Aug 09
Originally posted by SurtismI copied this chart some time ago and at this point in time I'm not sure who to give credit to. It is not mine. I think it came from one of the members here at RHP, but it is also possible that I picked it up elsewhere. I do not vouch for the accuracy but perhaps it will be helpful for you.
Out of interest, what differential does there need to be for there to be a net change of 0 points? I.E. when a significantly better player beats a lesser one?
I lost two games against Pawn Riot (a very nice person) and there was no alteration to either rating, which seemed harsh to him.
Chess Rating Chart
Difference ____ H -- D -- L
0-10 __________ 16 - 0 - 16
11-32 _________ 15 - 1 - 17
33-54 _________ 14 - 2 - 18
55-77 _________ 13 - 3 - 19
78-100 ________ 12 - 4 - 20
101-124 _______ 11 - 5 - 21
125-149 _______ 10 - 6 - 22
150-176 _______ 9 - 7 - 23
177-205 _______ 8 - 8 - 24
206-237 _______ 7 - 9 - 25
238-273 _______ 6 - 10 - 26
274-314 _______ 5 - 11 - 27
315-364 _______ 4 - 12 - 28
365-428 _______ 3 - 13 - 29
429-523 _______ 2 - 14 - 30
524-719 _______ 1 - 15 - 31
720+ __________ 0 - 16 - 32
Key
H - Higher rated player wins that number of points.
D - Draw, higher player losses that number, lower players gains that number.
L - Lower rated player wins that number of points.
03 Aug 09
The chart was supplied by Drew, who isn't with us any more, but there's a level at which it becomes inaccurate - about 2100 I think. See Thread 80000.
03 Aug 09
Originally posted by KewpieMost of us mortals need not worry about that though eh Kewpie? 🙂
The chart was supplied by Drew, who isn't with us any more, but there's a level at which it becomes inaccurate - about 2100 I think. See Thread 80000.
21 Oct 09
Originally posted by GuckyIf rating would be calculated from as it were when the game started I would do something like this:
Wouldn't it make more sense to take the numbers at the beginning of a match as at that point both players have a given accurate rating, whereas during the match ratings change?
(1) Start a great number of games, and after three moves resign them all. My rating will go down to, say 500 points.
(2) Start another great number of games, hundreds, perhaps thousands of games. As everyone of these games would be calculated as if my rating would be 500 points, my rating would sky rocket up to 3000, 4000 or even 5000 points in very short period of time.
This wouldn't be fair. I'm glad that the rating is calculated as it is when the game is ended. As it currently is.
21 Oct 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasI didn't take the cheaters into account ( no offense meant ) but I understand your point that surely there would be players out there that would take advantage of this.
If rating would be calculated from as it were when the game started I would do something like this:
(1) Start a great number of games, and after three moves resign them all. My rating will go down to, say 500 points.
(2) Start another great number of games, hundreds, perhaps thousands of games. As everyone of these games would be calculated as if my ...[text shortened]... r. I'm glad that the rating is calculated as it is when the game is ended. As it currently is.
22 Oct 09
Originally posted by GuckyWell, don't call them cheaters if it's within the rules.
I didn't take the cheaters into account ( no offense meant ) but I understand your point that surely there would be players out there that would take advantage of this.
I think the rating calculation of today is better. Harder to cheat, and with a lesser result.