I was wondering (without having to work through that horribly complicated scoring algorithm) the following scenarios: If you lose against someone with a much lower score do U get punished badly score wise (aside from the humiliation) And what if you lose to someone with a much higher score, does the same thing happen? Is there a best score to challenge ie: slightly higher than yourself?
Basically if you lose the higher the person is above you the less points you lose. And conversally the lower the perons is below you the more points you lose.
Complimentary to that is the points you gain by winning, if you beat someone rated higher than you you get more points than if you beat someone rated lower than you.
When calculating points, does it take into to account the ratings when the game was initiated, or when the game is finsihed. I was just wondering , because if it is on a definite final move (i.e. either checkmate win or resignation loss), people can delay that move for a more favourable result rating-wise
I believe RHP calculates the new ratings based on the player's ratings at the BEGINNING of the match. So by the time you finish the match what you see as your ratings is no longer what is used to calculate (in all likelyhood). So you will get an incorrect result, although it usually is a good guess.
I don't have a way with my tool of holding on to the ratings from the start of the match. Although it is conceivable to have this functionality but it would need to have access to the db for that to be accurately implemented.
Cool, it makes sense to calculate them from the ratings at the beginning of the match. a way of keeping the ratings from the beginning: just pop them in your "game notes" section 😉
Originally posted by gregoftheweb I believe RHP calculates the new ratings based on the player's ratings at the BEGINNING of the match.
In fact, the rating adjustments are calculated based on the players' ratings at the end of the match. There was a thread on this a while back where it was pointed out that this means it is a good idea to finish your losing games before your winning ones.
It would appear that this gives a way to manipulate the system and that it would be preferable to use the starting ratings, but someone gave a convincing argument against this: you could boost your rating unfairly by starting a lot of new games while you had a low rating. In any case, if a player is steadily starting and finishing games, their latest rating is the best measure of how hard it is to beat them.
Don't forget that provisional ratings are calculated in an entirely different way and that the effect of finishing a game against someone with a 'p' rating is half what you would otherwise expect.🙄
Don't forget that provisional ratings are calculated in an entirely different way and that the effect of finishing a game against someone with a 'p' rating is half what you would otherwise expect.🙄[/b]
I am currently playing P plater who has a very low score. His low score was due to him getting timed out several times so he might have the capacity to actually beat me. The calculator said i would lose some 30 points. So what U are saying is since he is a P plater I might only lose half that ie: 15 points?
Originally posted by PK I am currently playing P plater who has a very low score. His low score was due to him getting timed out several times so he might have the capacity to actually beat me. The calculator said i would lose some 30 points. So what U are saying is since he is a P plater I might only lose half that ie: 15 points?
Yes, that's right. The provisional rating system is explained here: http://www.redhotpawn.com /board/ showthread.php? id=5789 (leave out the spaces).
The "PA" factor means that the change in your score when you finish a game against a "p" player is half what the formula otherwise indicates.
15 Sep '03 06:07
Scoring question
Back to Top