Originally posted by Meadows
I'm quite sure that I've seen some people giving a suggestion that goes like this:
"I think at the end of the game, my new rating should be calculated using the ratings we had at the start of a game."
The reasoning is usually based around the idea that a hard fought game that is won on time-out because your opponent leaves the site results in a gain of o ...[text shortened]... the typical number of games in progress by a player not really affect this?
i'm thinking a decent player could lose a bunch to make their rating artificially low, and then begin a LOT of games at that artificially low rating against higher ranked players... then when all those games are finished their ranking would be inflated above their actual ability.
for instance a 1500 rated player loses til they are 1100, then begins 400 games against 1400 rated players (who they should beat very regularly). They end up being awarded points for an "upset" for every win, and even are docked a fairly insubstantial number of points when they lose a game that should have been won.
possibility for serious artificial inflation of ratings