#### Only Chess Forum

1. 21 Apr '14 15:07
Hello.

Since all chess player’s ratings are between 800 and 2900, why don’t we make a new rating defined like this:
New rating = (Old rating – 800) / 2.2
So that all chess player’s ratings would be between 0 and 999.

Or if we would like that the weakest players have a rating starting with the digit “1” (a rating >= 100) we could define the new rating like that:
New rating = (Old rating – 600) / 2.4

Or if we would like to be able to easily convert between old and new ratings we could define the new rating like this:
New rating = (Old rating – 1000) / 2
(Though here extremely weak players would have a negative rating.)

My point is that we would have almost the same precision, but we would only need to use 3 digits instead of 4.

I believe the current rating system is bad because a big range of numbers (3000 to 9999) isn’t used.

What do you think?
2.  SwissGambit
Caninus Interruptus
21 Apr '14 15:26
Originally posted by Marc Benford
What do you think?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It's a statistical measurement. What matters is not the value of the rating, but its difference from another rating.
3.  Copope
Duck
22 Apr '14 06:47
Does the rating people start with affect the average rating? what i mean is that on other sites, instead of the provisional period, they just drop you in. Years ago on yahoo chess it was 1200, they said they choose this b/c it was the average. On the surface this is fine. After, say, 30 games your rating should stabilize. However, if everyone starts at 1500, you could have two completely different ratings on two sites and both would be accurate. I guess what I'm asking is if my thinking on this is flawed?

I have more to say on ratings but it may be too off topic.
4.  sonhouse
Fast and Curious
22 Apr '14 21:07
Originally posted by Copope
Does the rating people start with affect the average rating? what i mean is that on other sites, instead of the provisional period, they just drop you in. Years ago on yahoo chess it was 1200, they said they choose this b/c it was the average. On the surface this is fine. After, say, 30 games your rating should stabilize. However, if everyone starts at 1500, ...[text shortened]... my thinking on this is flawed?

I have more to say on ratings but it may be too off topic.
How would you cope with ratings inflation?
5.  Schlecter
The King of Board
22 Apr '14 23:39
I remember that in yahoo there are colors for different rating. so 1200 to 1400 = blue, 1400 to 1600 = green, 1600 to 1800 = yellow, >1800 Red.
-
So the colors are in some way a rating system in its own right, with just 4 grades.
6.  Paul Leggett
Chess Librarian
24 Apr '14 02:25
Originally posted by Schlecter
I remember that in yahoo there are colors for different rating. so 1200 to 1400 = blue, 1400 to 1600 = green, 1600 to 1800 = yellow, >1800 Red.
-
So the colors are in some way a rating system in its own right, with just 4 grades.
They made the highest rating red as a warning against computer users.
7.  bill718
Enigma
24 Apr '14 05:24
Originally posted by Marc Benford
Hello.

Since all chess player’s ratings are between 800 and 2900, why don’t we make a new rating defined like this:
New rating = (Old rating – 800) / 2.2
So that all chess player’s ratings would be between 0 and 999.

Or if we would like that the weakest players have a rating starting with the digit “1” (a rating >= 100) we could define the n ...[text shortened]... ng system is bad because a big range of numbers (3000 to 9999) isn’t used.

What do you think?
Interesting idea, but I don't think it would be any more accurate than what we have now, and that one extra diget is not an awesome burden
8.  ChessPraxis
Cowboy From Hell
24 Apr '14 05:56
Originally posted by Marc Benford
Hello.

Since all chess player’s ratings are between 800 and 2900, why don’t we make a new rating defined like this:
New rating = (Old rating – 800) / 2.2
So that all chess player’s ratings would be between 0 and 999.

Or if we would like that the weakest players have a rating starting with the digit “1” (a rating >= 100) we could define the n ...[text shortened]... ng system is bad because a big range of numbers (3000 to 9999) isn’t used.

What do you think?
It's a livin' thing,
It's a terrible thing to lose
It's a given thing
What a terrible thing to lose.