Does it take into account the number of games you have played? It seems to fluctuate a great deal with wins and losses and I think with the USCF ratings, once you get a bunch of games under your belt the fluctuation slows down.
No it just takes into account yours and your opponent's current ratings. So, in an indirect way it takes into account the games you've played, but is really heavily weighted towards recent form, as it should be, don't you think?
Originally posted by kyngj No it just takes into account yours and your opponent's current ratings. So, in an indirect way it takes into account the games you've played, but is really heavily weighted towards recent form, as it should be, don't you think?
Joe
Not really. So for example: Someone rated 2200 plays a newbie who happens to be a GM and loses. Under the current formula his rating may drop say to around 1800 (for arguments sake). Does that seem right?
Even the best people have a bad day but does it make sense to penalize someone who consistently beats players rated say 1600 and has a rating of 1600 and has played 200 games to get their rating, but loses to a newbie and has their rating dropped dramatically?
I'm not sure how much fluctuation is allowed and I couldn't find anything in the help menus so I thought I'd get a discussion going. I'm not here for the rating. I just want to learn and have fun. I was just noticing what I thought was big jumps and drops. What do ya'll think? 🙂
True, you raise a good point. But the converse situation might also apply. If, for example, rating is based on the last 50 games played, plus the rating of your current opponent, (as is something like the case in Bridge), then you can have players who have not played well for a long time with a falsely high rating...
There is a simple fix for the problem of losing hundreds of points against newbies, and many of the top players follow this, by not accepting games against new players. Indeed, it has often been suggested here that players should start with a provisional rating until they've played say their first 30 games or so... in that case their opponents would not lose points but their prov. rating would change by what they would have gained until they go "live". I think this would be a decent fix to the issue
The way the ratings are calculated takes into account 'win expectancy' (calculated by comparing the two players' ratings) and for players under 2000 the maximum number of rating points that they could lose in one go is 32.
Originally posted by Walkafire Howdy all..
Ok what does it mean when you see the STAR without Wings?
And why are there different colors, with and without wings?
I am hooked on this site, I have signed up about 4 people I have gotten into this...
Doug
OK, without wings = joined before the subscription system came in, ie, life members
with wings = yearly subscribers
The colours denote the number of moves you have made, with red for above 50000, and some other gradations in between,
Originally posted by kyngj [b]True, you raise a good point. But the converse situation might also apply. If, for example, rating is based on the last 50 games played, plus the rating of your current opponent, (as is something like the case in Bridge), then you can have players who have not played well for a long time with a falsely high rating...
Actually what I was thinking was a sort of weighted average rating. In the case you bring up it would also limit the 'jump' a player would get either way as long as they have played a fair number of games.
However, I do like the provisional idea a great deal. I think it is a fair way to get people 'rated' without penalizing current players. Sometimes I think a lot of people are afraid to accept Open Invites from someone rated 1200 because I see them sitting out there for a while. Maybe this would remove that fear.
when last i looked my standard rating was about 1250-1300. i would love to have the rating i have here 😛.
I generally look at the amount of games people have played before accepting/making challenges. If they have never lost a game I generally wont play em 😕
22 Jan '03 15:111 edit
Ratings formula...
Back to Top