ratings

if i have beaten a player more than 200 pts better than me how come I get 25pts and he only loses 25pts ?

What you gain is equal to what your opponent losses, just the way it works. Chill

You've played 454 games so far. What makes you think about ratings now?
It has always been like this (except for your 20 first games)!

See a rating calculator such as the one on http://www.littlethorpechess.co.uk/elo_calculator.htm

Originally posted by The Swine Down Hope
What you gain is equal to what your opponent losses, just the way it works. Chill

Not always. It depends on the person's K value in there rating formula. K is adjusted down somewhere around 24, however the %K that you gain is equal to the %K that they lose.

Originally posted by ScouseMouse
if i have beaten a player more than 200 pts better than me how come I get 25pts and he only loses 25pts ?

The most you can get for beating anyone is 32.

stop your moaning, ratings don't tell lies,the rules are the same for everybody,when you start to improve you might get to 1400

Originally posted by ScouseMouse
if i have beaten a player more than 200 pts better than me how come I get 25pts and he only loses 25pts ?

the one who lost can always decide how many points the winner gets...

Originally posted by ScouseMouse
if i have beaten a player more than 200 pts better than me how come I get 25pts and he only loses 25pts ?

You are getting a few stern replies. Perhaps you weren't moaning, but simply asking?

You seem to feel hard done by, but that is because you are looking at the issue of ratings based on just the game in question. However, ratings are about your overall standard over time. If you were rated at 1000, and beat someone rated 2000, you wouldnt expect that you went up to say 1300, and him down to 1700? Winning that one game doesn't mean you have suddenly become 300 rating points better, and the same in reverse for him. If you are worthly of a 1300 rating (in this example), you will prove it over the next dozen or so games by those you win. Likewise, your theoretical 2000 rated opponent has earned those rating points, and should not be punished severely for one slip up.
Ratings should evolve, if they are to be accurate, not jump hugely based on one game, which can equal one bad move!!

Originally posted by Policestate
You are getting a few stern replies. Perhaps you weren't moaning, but simply asking?

You seem to feel hard done by, but that is because you are looking at the issue of ratings based on just the game in question. However, ratings are about your overall standard over time. If you were rated at 1000, and beat someone rated 2000, you wouldnt expect that y ...[text shortened]... if they are to be accurate, not jump hugely based on one game, which can equal one bad move!!

brilliant answer to a question that shows up all the time.

to policestate,at last,a informative answer.It WAS only a question thanks.:

Originally posted by z00t
See a rating calculator such as the one on http://www.littlethorpechess.co.uk/elo_calculator.htm

Wow zOOt! Does it apply also on this site? And what about RD? I like it, you can predict your rating if you win your next games

Originally posted by z00t
See a rating calculator such as the one on http://www.littlethorpechess.co.uk/elo_calculator.htm

Littlethorpe? Bloody hell, I'm playing a match against them tomorrow. Only the 9th team, but sadly we're not that good. 🙁

Erm. Sorry for hijacking the thread.

Originally posted by Policestate
You are getting a few stern replies. Perhaps you weren't moaning, but simply asking?

You seem to feel hard done by, but that is because you are looking at the issue of ratings based on just the game in question. However, ratings are about your overall standard over time. If you were rated at 1000, and beat someone rated 2000, you wouldnt expect that y ...[text shortened]... if they are to be accurate, not jump hugely based on one game, which can equal one bad move!!

Great Answer !!! rec'd