Hi all. Just joined the site and had a quick query. I've seen it mentioned a couple of times that rating points are awarded at the conclusion of a game and are calculated on the players rating at the point in time the game ends. Is this the case? If so why is it that way round and not at the point in time when the game is commenced? This would stop the behaviour of letting time run out in lost games where one player is hoping that one or other players rating will change to their benefit.
Originally posted by shortstop47Because it's CC and not over the board (OTB) chess. CC games take forever and ever to finish. Using the begin ratings wouldn't make sense.
Hi all. Just joined the site and had a quick query. I've seen it mentioned a couple of times that rating points are awarded at the conclusion of a game and are calculated on the players rating at the point in time the game ends. Is this the case? If so why is it that way round and not at the point in time when the game is commenced? This would stop the b ...[text shortened]... games where one player is hoping that one or other players rating will change to their benefit.
You and your opponent are 1200 at the start of the game. The game ends after 6 months and your rating right before the game ended is 1500 and his is 1600.
So Rhp uses 1500 and 1600 instead of 1200 for both. It's not perfect and lots of people are jerks when they are losing and never move, mass timeouts etc...
It's not perfect but it's better to use the end ones then the beginning ones. Personally If I had a choice I would average the first, middle, and end ratings. That would be the fairest.
it would be cool to have ratings which decay over time (like the chessmetric.com ratings). This way, there would be no incentive to take any longer than necessary. The who plays the most gets a boost. No resting on laurels, or hiding because of a difficult, or losing, position. Chess is life!