@dustin saidThe ratings are a way to assess the strength of a player. About 400 rating points difference mean (in principle) that higher player wins each game.
I don't pay much attention to the personal ratings but I would like somebody to explain to me what's the importance of a high score? This is probably a dumb question but I don't know where else to look to answer this. Thanks!
The rating ahs some value for setting up groups of players, so that games are not too lopsided.
Some people think it they have an artificially high rating they are thought to be chess giants. If you only interested in the entertainment value of the game, the ratings are meanignless to you.
- Joined
- 14 Feb 09
- Moves
- 12541
@ogb saidThere is one.
It's been a mystery to me why someone hasn't put up a website that has no ratings.
It's a correspondence website with a lot of games including chess.
They say "friendly" and "tournament" but they don't give ratings.
1 edit
@ponderable saidThe chess rating systems I'm familiar with are designed so that the winner would gain rating points even against a much lower-rated opponent. For example, a player who was at least 350 points higher rated might need to win seven games for every draw (with no losses) in order to break even.
The ratings are a way to assess the strength of a player. About 400 rating points difference mean (in principle) that higher player wins each game.
This means that the higher-rated player's expected winning percentage never quite reaches 100%, although it approaches 100% as the rating difference increases.
@ogb saidYou may enjoy checking out ItsYourTurn, a nice turn-based, browser-based site that has various forms of chess and other abstract games.
It's been a mystery to me why someone hasn't put up a website that has no ratings.
Basic membership is free, and they host open play and structured tournaments without any ratings (though your personal win-loss percentages are recorded as part of your stats on the site).
I play here for more serious rated games, but also enjoy the "fast" tournaments there for just knocking pieces around and having some fun.
- Joined
- 20 May 17
- Moves
- 20504
@fmdavidhlevin saidWithout knowing it, I've played rated games where I had no chance to gain any points.
The chess rating systems I'm familiar with are designed so that the winner would gain rating points even against a much lower-rated opponent.
Only lose points with a draw or loss. LOL .
@ogb saidOuch. It would seem fairer to credit the much higher-rated winner with a fraction of a point, even if the gain wouldn't be reflected in the player's rating until sufficient fractional gains had been accumulated.
Without knowing it, I've played rated games where I had no chance to gain any points.
Only lose points with a draw or loss. LOL .
@fmdavidhlevin saidI think your suggestion runs the risk of over complicating the rating system here.
Ouch. It would seem fairer to credit the much higher-rated winner with a fraction of a point, even if the gain wouldn't be reflected in the player's rating until sufficient fractional gains had been accumulated.
I don't take much notice of it personally but it is a handy tool as a guide for clan leaders setting up challenges, even though it can, and is ,manipulated by some players.
I play on here mainly for r &r so the ratings are just a bit of extra interest.
@fmdavidhlevin saidOr the higher-rated player could stick to players more his or her own size...
Ouch. It would seem fairer to credit the much higher-rated winner with a fraction of a point, even if the gain wouldn't be reflected in the player's rating until sufficient fractional gains had been accumulated.
@bigdoggproblem saidTrue. Ideally, I would prefer a rating system that does not make it more difficult (at least in the abstract) for a player who likes playing way "up" to find willing opponents (such as by removing the possibility of rating gain for the higher-rated player). But I'd agree that in reality, whether a rating system has this property is unlikely to matter to more than a handful of people (if that).
Or the higher-rated player could stick to players more his or her own size...
@venda saidI gave up Clan playing because I lost all confidence in the TER being an honest indication of the ability of a clan player. Players shedding points in non-clan games to lower their rating.
I think your suggestion runs the risk of over complicating the rating system here.
I don't take much notice of it personally but it is a handy tool as a guide for clan leaders setting up challenges, even though it can, and is ,manipulated by some players.
I play on here mainly for r &r so the ratings are just a bit of extra interest.
I've been losing tournament games on here when the tide suddenly turns and I win.
And so I go look at their profile and scroll down and say yes just as I thought a clan player.
So to all the clan players who have donated points to me over the years- thanks but no thanks.