Originally posted by ExyI agree, your highest rating should a benchmark for you to aspire to beat, and it should be on your profile page. It's a great idea and it's a further incentive for players to improve their games.
I reached 2000 yesterday, which was nice as it was a number that I had set myself as a personal goal and it's been tough. I have to admit I was helped by a few lucky time outs against some high rated players.
24 hours later my rating has dropped back down to 1978, this is because I resigned the remaining games from a lost tournament (I was in lost positio ...[text shortened]... e graph, but I agree it would be handy to hold a player's highest ever rating on their profile.
Originally posted by flexmoreFlex, you've persuaded me that highest ever rating is a bad idea. What would be a good idea is player's average rating across all their completed games - this would really help to offset time out wins/losses.
i disagree ... highest rating does not mean a lot .....
if i am a 1500 player .... and start 100 new games, and play slower in the games where i am losing, and refuse to resign any until the last possible moment ....
then my rating will artificially shoot up to 2000 points ... as i take the wins ... temporarily ... and then plummet to 1000 ... when i ...[text shortened]... period of 100 finished games .... but, i do not know if this involves a lot of computation time.
Originally posted by ExyHow would u allow for the initial climb from 1200 to the players normal rating? I'd say its taken me about 150 (3 quarters) games to reach what seems to be my rating, so this average across all my games would be pretty meaningless. Obviously, its a different story for somebody like yourself who's played a load of games.
Flex, you've persuaded me that highest ever rating is a bad idea. What would be a good idea is player's [b]average rating across all their completed games - this would really help to offset time out wins/losses.[/b]