12 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZPlayers are rated using the following formula:
Try reading the FAQ next time.
New Rating = Old Rating + K * (Score - Win Expectancy)
K is a constant (32 for 0-2099, 24 for 2100-2399, 16 for 2400 and above)
Score is 1 for a win, 0.5 for a draw and 0 for a loss.
The Win Expectancy is calculated using the following formula :
Win Expectancy = 1 / (10^((OpponentRating-YourRating)/400)+1)
The Win Expectancy is used in the rating calculation but is interesting on its own. For example, the calculation below is for a rating difference of 200. This shows that if you have a rating 200 points higher than another player, you can expect to beat them, on average, three times for each four games played.
Win Expectancy = 1 / (10^(-200/400)+1) = 0.76
Note: ^ = "to the power of", e.g. 2^3=8.
😕
12 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by huckleberryhound3+2 = 5
Players are rated using the following formula:
New Rating = Old Rating + K * (Score - Win Expectancy)
K is a constant (32 for 0-2099, 24 for 2100-2399, 16 for 2400 and above)
Score is 1 for a win, 0.5 for a draw and 0 for a loss.
The Win Expectancy is calculated using the following formula :
Win Expectancy = 1 / (10^((OpponentRating- ...[text shortened]... ectancy = 1 / (10^(-200/400)+1) = 0.76
Note: ^ = "to the power of", e.g. 2^3=8.
😕
12 Jul 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZYou're right there. But it says nothing about the length of the game.
It tells you what the formula for ratings is. The formula doesn't take into account moves. There's your answer.
My point is:
We have to be somewhat generous to the newcomers to answer their questions, not only shove "Read the f*ucking FAQ!" in their throat every time they ask something. We have to be patient to everything that is new in chess and here at RHP.
If I was a newcomer and never heard about rating I would think something like this: "You earn more rating points in a short game than in a long game because it's harder to win fast." You and I know that that is not the case. The only thing that matters is how much rating points the opponent has, and that's all.
But we can't litter the FAQ with every bit of information. We have to suppose that there is lose ends here and there. Else the FAQ will be long as Chinese Wall and no one will read it at all.
So we have to be generous to the newcomers, be gentle to them. We don't want to scare them away. They will eventually be subscribers and help Russ making this great site be even greater.
You are right, XanthosNZ, of course you are. The rating formula doesn't say anything about the length of the game.
But the formula is rather complex to understand for the average newcomer, doesn't say anything really, unless you don't understand rating points from the beginning.
But of course you're right...
12 Jul 06
Originally posted by exigentskygod your sooooooo witty.
Your rating is a function of how pretty the game was. For example, if you start with h4 and win, you only get half the points that you would had you played d4. However, the number of moves is not taken into account. 😉
i sure wish i could be as witty as you.
in fact. . . . nope, nope, you're as witty as bursting acne (which you probably have to do every day).
Back to the point in hand, i just wondered if there was a points difference between losing quick to a +400 player, and making him work for it.
Not being a chess club member or anything, i never knew (or looked at the FAQ).
Feel free to play with your own fingers in glee at trying to make a fool of someone for asking a question (and by saying "play with your own fingers", i do of course mean kiss my hiney 🙂 )
12 Jul 06
Originally posted by FabianFnasJoined : 12 Oct '05
You're right there. But it says nothing about the length of the game.
My point is:
We have to be somewhat generous to the newcomers to answer their questions, not only shove "Read the f*ucking FAQ!" in their throat every time they ask something. We have to be patient to everything that is new in chess and here at RHP.
If I was a newcomer and never ...[text shortened]... don't understand rating points from the beginning.
But of course you're right...
Moves : 12864
That doesn't count as newcomer in my book.
12 Jul 06
would anyone bother to resign if they could make it last longer for a lower rating pt deduction?
I dont take any pleasure in being rude, but that was really a stupid question.
especially coming from a clan leader who has played 340 games, couldnt you just look at your graph and see if that has EVER happened in those 300+ games?
12 Jul 06
Originally posted by TuranthorMaybe so, but stupid answers can be more stupid than stupid questions. I would think just giving a straight answer without trying to make it more complicated than it really is, would be the best solution no matter how old they are, their position, or how long they have been here at RHP rather than trying to make someone look like a fool. To me it is just looks like an attempt to make sure everyone sees how smart and superior you are and how dumb someone else is. To me that has a negative effect. I see that is a sign of low self esteem. A cry for attention. And in truth dumb as a rock. What good is intelligence if you don't share it in a simple intelligent unselfish way?
would anyone bother to resign if they could make it last longer for a lower rating pt deduction?
I dont take any pleasure in being rude, but that was really a stupid question.
especially coming from a clan leader who has played 340 games, couldnt you just look at your graph and see if that has EVER happened in those 300+ games?