1. Joined
    26 May '02
    Moves
    72546
    11 Nov '06 02:37
    Yes, I completely agree.

    As you know, this has been brought up before:-

    Thread 54199
  2. Standard memberPhlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    tinyurl.com/3sbbwd4
    Joined
    27 Mar '03
    Moves
    17242
    11 Nov '06 15:06
    When you look at a graph, isn't the top number on the left just about your highest ever (roughly)?

    P-
  3. Berks.
    Joined
    27 Nov '04
    Moves
    41991
    11 Nov '06 16:11
    Originally posted by Phlabibit
    When you look at a graph, isn't the top number on the left just about your highest ever (roughly)?

    P-
    No (it's just the highest within the past 300 games)
  4. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    11 Nov '06 16:502 edits
    Say, that at your first game as a member, you win luckily to an opponent of a high rating. Then your rating will be *very* high. I've seen people with a rating of 1800, after that it will (slowly) decrease to its true level.
    Hence - the highest ever rating can't be of any value if you don't know what happened the first (some fifty?) games until it has settled.

    Golden King User 285560 is an extreme example of what I mean.
Back to Top