2 edits
I started playing Ponderable a few days ago when he was in the mid 1200s, now he is around 1350. Quite a rating improvement by any standard!. If I happen to win my match against him, will my rating be adjusted based on his current rating or his initial rating when starting the game?
Anyway, here's the game: Game 1606212
Originally posted by exigentskyhttp://www.chessatwork.com/help/index.php?help=faq
I started playing Pondertable a few days ago when he was in the mid 1200s, now he is around 1350. Quite a rating improvement by any standard!. If I happen to win my match against him, will my rating be adjusted based on his current rating or his initial rating when starting the game?
Anyway, here's the game: http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=1606212
have a look at how my rating is calculated section
Originally posted by ilywrinit's only reasonable, because it's more accurate indication of a players statistical strength. not taking into account all the games completed between the start and the end of that last game would create a potentially huge bias.
...unfortunately.
if anything, the most recent games should affect rating more than older games. that's why some rating systems have that 'RD' or some similar concept incorporated. it makes the rating converge quicker to the 'real' rating, thus making it more accurate.
Originally posted by wormwoodYes more recent games probably should affect the rating more as they are more accurate a representation of your current strength. However often times a pawn/piece may be lost very early on in the game (especially at lower ratings); If the game then drags on another 3-4 months, the player could easily be 100-200 points stronger, yet lose the game and be penalized in their rating for having lost as a 1400 while actually losing the game as a 1200 (when they dropped the piece or pawn).
it's only reasonable, because it's more accurate indication of a players statistical strength. not taking into account all the games completed between the start and the end of that last game would create a potentially huge bias.
if anything, the most recent games should affect rating more than older games. that's why some rating systems ...[text shortened]... ated. it makes the rating converge quicker to the 'real' rating, thus making it more accurate.
Realistically there are complaints either way, and I don't really care all that much, so pick the lesser of 2 evils and be consistent (which software is good at) and I will be satisfied. Remember, your rating si where you have been.
Originally posted by exigentskyObviously the rating will be calculated based on your opponent's rating at the end of the game,it wouldn't make sense otherwise.
Thanks, it answered some questions, but unfortunately, not the one I asked. Will the rating be calculated based on my opponent's rating when I start the game, based on his rating when the game is over or perhaps an average of the two?
Originally posted by exigentskyNo, it's not obvious. You were right to ask. We recently had a debate about this, but came to the conclusion that using the rating at the start of the game right lead to rating inflation.
Obviously it wasn't obvious to me. 😉 I thought it would be better if the starting and ending ratings were averaged and then used to calculate my rating.
2 edits
Well,it's pretty obvious because if you use the rating at the beginning of the game then people would massively resign already messed games and start new games/invites with very low ratings,hence winning/losing a lot more/less points when the game ends.
E.G.:I'm a 1400 and I resign 10 games where I'm a rook or more down.
My rating becomes something around 1200 ,then I start putting a lot of open invites for >1400.
Can you see the difference between the two sistems?
Do any of you ever wondered why on all sites the rating used for calculation is the one at the end of the game?
Originally posted by RavelloFirst off, thats system not sistem.
Well,it's pretty obvious because if you use the rating at the beginning of the game then people would massively resign already messed games and start new games/invites with very low ratings,hence winning/losing a lot more/less points when the game ends.
E.G.:I'm a 1400 and I resign 10 games where I'm a rook or more down.
My rating becomes something ar ...[text shortened]... dered why on [b]all sites the rating used for calculation is the one at the end of the game?[/b]
No I don't see the difference. Lets assume that you resign 10 games where you are a rook or more down (games you will lose anyway). Your rating still plummets down to 1200 and you put for open invites for >1400 which people may or may not accept.
In your system, those games that finish right after your resignations will rate you with a (wait for it) 1200 rating. If using the rating from the start of the game, then you have to wait for those games to end (perhaps months from now) to get the points as a 1200. It is simply a matter of when it happens. Besides, when you blunder the rook away, its probably at a low point in your playing and your rating is now higher thus penalizing you as a 1400 instead of the 1200 you were when you blundered. My only real concer is that if you start a game as a 1200 playing, but by the end you are a 1450, would you just gain the differnce between 1200 and what your rating would be had you played no other games in there, or do they go back and totally recalculate your rating based on the chronology of the start times?
My real problem with your example, is why are you resigning 10 games at a time anyway? That will always cause a large rating drop.
1 edit
Originally posted by zebanoDon't act smartass just because I made a typo.
First off, thats system not sistem.
In your post you wrote concer but I'm afraid to say that the right word is concern,happy now?
Then if you can't grasp why the final rating is used for calculation ,well,I won't bother explaining once more,at least I tried......
Originally posted by RavelloClearly it obvious wasn't to many. We had a long debate culminating in a vote about this topic.
Well,it's pretty obvious because if you use the rating at the beginning of the game then people would massively resign already messed games and start new games/invites with very low ratings,hence winning/losing a lot more/less points when the game ends.
E.G.:I'm a 1400 and I resign 10 games where I'm a rook or more down.
My rating becomes something ar ...[text shortened]... dered why on [b]all sites the rating used for calculation is the one at the end of the game?[/b]