Originally posted by fennyin
What he means (I think) is there's no reason to keep ratings from going negative.

Oh, I see. That could be true--there wouldn't be anything inherently wrong with a negative rating.

However, I do notice the formula for the "K" value refers to a rating range of 0-2099 (not just "less than 2099"😉. So there could be room for a mistake here if you're not careful.

What would really be funny is if the rating were an unsigned value that would wrap around to 4 billion something if it tried to go negative 🙂

Originally posted by fennyin
What he means (I think) is there's no reason to keep ratings from going negative.

Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks for the clarification.

Originally posted by incandenza
What would really be funny is if the rating were an unsigned value that would wrap around to 4 billion something if it tried to go negative 🙂

That player would get a flood of challenges!

Originally posted by incandenza
Oh, I see. That could be true--there wouldn't be anything inherently wrong with a negative rating.

However, I do notice the formula for the "K" value refers to a rating range of 0-2099 (not just "less than 2099"😉. So there could be room for a mistake here if you're not careful.

What would really be funny is if the rating were an unsigned value that would wrap around to 4 billion something if it tried to go negative 🙂

Do you mean minus 4 billion? tia

Originally posted by ketchuplover
Do you mean minus 4 billion? tia

No, he is referring to how computers store information. The programmer has to be casted into the proper type of number. If type shortInt is -16 < x < 16 (it's not but for example) and it's currently -15 and you subtract 1, typically you will end up with 15.9999999... In this case he is suggesting that it might go from 0 to 2^32 (approx 4 billion).