- 03 Sep '04 07:43 / 1 editGot your attention? hehe, good. ;-)

I was playing with the ratings calculator (i dont' remember how i got there) and I figured out the output table (instead of the actual formula)

I'm pleased as punch at myself, and i thought I'd share my joy and insightes with all (unsolicited!)

The following the MATRIX. It needs a little explaining.

SCENARIO: Player 1 has a rating of 1200 , Player 2 has a rating of 1300

(DR) = The difference in ratings. ex: 1200 - 1300 = |-100| = 100

(LR) = If the underdog wins (in this case, player 1), they get this many points.

(HR) = If the higher rated wins (in this case, player 2), they get this many points.

DR |LR |HR

15 -16-15

25 -17-14

50 -18-13

75 -19-12

100-20-11

125-21-10

150-22-9

175-23-8

200-24-7

250-25-6

275-26-5

300-27-4

350-28-3

400-29-2

500-30-1

600-31-0

More than 600 doesn't change the awarded points.

Less than 15 doesn't change the awareded points.

Round to the nearest DR and that's what you'll get awarded.

NOTE: Your opponent will lose what you win, plus one. (if u win 20 points, they lose 21) - 12 Sep '04 07:32 / 2 editsI think somewhere a flaw entered your table. If the players have equal rating, the winner gets
**exactly**16 points, and the loser loses exactly 16 points. There will be no difference. Furthermore, at a difference of 600 points, the players will lose/win 31 points if the lowest rated wins, else 1; at a difference of 1000, 32 else 0. I think you should recheck your table, or maybe the calculator you used isn't correct.

Note: this only applies to players both below 2100 points. - 12 Sep '04 08:31

I think you are right. The net result of a game is zero.*Originally posted by piderman***I think somewhere a flaw entered your table. If the players have equal rating, the winner gets [b]exactly**16 points, and the loser loses exactly 16 points. There will be no difference. Furthermore, at a difference of 600 points, the players will lose/win 31 points if the lowest rated wins, else 1; at a difference of 1000, 32 else 0. I think you should r ...[text shortened]... alculator you used isn't correct.

Note: this only applies to players both below 2100 points.[/b] - 12 Sep '04 08:38 / 1 edit

this is true only if the same formula is used for each player (with a negative applied to one of them)*Originally posted by Mephisto2***I think you are right. The net result of a game is zero.**

when one is over 2100 and one is under 2100 this is not the case.

- but i am sure you see that every day! ðŸ˜‰ - 12 Sep '04 09:04 / 2 edits

Are you sure you are reading the table correctly? It's not saying that in the SAME GAME one player goes up 16 and one goes down 15. It's really saying the points change depending on whether the result is the expected (Higher ranked wins) or there is an upset (Lower ranked wins).*Originally posted by piderman***I think somewhere a flaw entered your table. If the players have equal rating, the winner gets [b]exactly**16 points, and the loser loses exactly 16 points. There will be no difference. Furthermore, at a difference of 600 points, the pl ...[text shortened]... ect.

Note: this only applies to players both below 2100 points.[/b]

So, the first column is saying: 'upset' = winner goes up 16 and loser goes down 16. Expected result = winner goes up 15 and loser goes down 15.

Apparently that means that with equally ranked players the result is +/- 16, so it fits in the 'upset' column.

With the 1000 points difference, maybe he/she didn't calculate quite far enough.

EDIT: Okay, I see you are disagreeing with the 600 figure as well. Maybe you WERE reading it right partially. But as I said, the table is NOT suggesting there will be a difference in how much each player's rating is affected by a single result. - 13 Sep '04 03:12

Hmmm, you're right!*Originally posted by piderman***orfeo, I think this clearly states that what one player wins isn't the same as the other loses.**

I didn't actually see that note. I was only looking at the table itself. Usually I pride myself on reading the fine print.

Well, in that case, the table needs a little more work. Very good basic idea though. - 18 Sep '04 00:51 / 2 edits

id like to learn the*Originally posted by Red Matrix***Got your attention? hehe, good. ;-)**

I was playing with the ratings calculator (i dont' remember how i got there) and I figured out the output table (instead of the actual formula)

I'm pleased as punch at myself, and i thought I ...[text shortened]... ll lose what you win, plus one. (if u win 20 points, they lose 21)*formula*