09 Oct 17
How would it be appealing exactly to have exclusively unrated? You can play rated/unrated games on many sites but its frustrating at times to play a "guest" who is either a complete beginner or someone testing a chess engine. Its best to play people around your level and this usually means rated games (some sites allow unrated games between rated players).
- Joined
- 20 May 17
- Moves
- 17542
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @congruentI was thinking more along the lines of a "King of the Hill" format.. No ratings at all. Just like some Pyramids tourneys. If you win , you go up and visa versa..
How would it be appealing exactly to have exclusively unrated? You can play rated/unrated games on many sites but its frustrating at times to play a "guest" who is either a complete beginner or someone testing a chess engine. Its best to play people around your level and this usually means rated games (some sites allow unrated games between rated players).
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @ogbRating based purely on wins at the site. You don't get a number, you just end up in a pool based on your wins vs losses? Everyone in that pool is group together by record on the site.
I was thinking more along the lines of a "King of the Hill" format.. No ratings at all. Just like some Pyramids tourneys. If you win , you go up and visa versa..
In essence that is what an ELO is, just weighting your opponents based on the pool they are in.