New rating calculation

Don't you think it would make more sense to calculate the rating change by each players rating at the beginning of the game? I see several reasons how this would improve the site.

1. There are many high rated players who simply stop moving in lost games, especially against lower rated players. They then wait until they have a huge rating fall, and resign all their games, without losing many points.

2. It often happens that a player does not log on for several weeks, and gets a relativily low rating due to timeouts. Then, when games that were actually won are finished, a lower rated player who was winning would not get the points he deserved, and a high rated player who was losing, or drawing, loses far more points than he deserves.

3. Unfortunatly, this site has a large number of sandbaggers, as mentioned in other threads. When a lower rated player hangs on in a game which started with a higher rating, he does not get an accurate rating change. When a higher, or equal rated player loses, the same thing happens.

Please consider this suggestion, as I think it would greatly improve the site.

Originally posted by clandarkfire
Don't you think it would make more sense to calculate the rating change by each players rating at the beginning of the game? I see several reasons how this would improve the site.

1. There are many high rated players who simply stop moving in lost games, especially against lower rated players. They then wait until they have a huge rating fall, and re ...[text shortened]... hing happens.

Please consider this suggestion, as I think it would greatly improve the site.

Thread 93225

See Ragnorak's post for a reason why you can't base a game on the start. Seems Phillidor came up with an alternative idea in the third post.

P-

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Thread 93225

See Ragnorak's post for a reason why you can't base a game on the start. Seems Phillidor came up with an alternative idea in the third post.

P-

Oh thanks, I didn't see that thread. Its just that its not fair for players to delay games for months, in hope of losing less points. For example:

I started Game 4951853 about two months ago, when my opponent was rated 1800. For the first 25 moves, he always responded rapidly, up to 4 or 5 moves a day. However, as soon as it became apparent that I would win, (mate in five, or something like that,) he stoped moving, and moved exactly every 21 days. When I messaged him, asking why he was not moving, he put me on his ignore list. Yesterday, a month and a half later, he suddenly resigned lots of games, droping his rating to 1350. Then resigned our game, and I got the same amount of points I would have gotten for beating a 1300. I just dont think this is fair.

Edit: The link does not work, here is the URL: http://www.redhotpawn.com/core/playchess.php?gameid=4951835

I cannot see the game 4951835. I didn't think a game could be deleted.

Originally posted by clandarkfire
Oh thanks, I didn't see that thread. Its just that its not fair for players to delay games for months, in hope of losing less points. For example:

I started Game 4951853 about two months ago, when my opponent was rated 1800. For the first 25 moves, he always responded rapidly, up to 4 or 5 moves a day. However, as soon as it became apparent th ...[text shortened]... nk does not work, here is the URL: http://www.redhotpawn.com/core/playchess.php?gameid=4951835

That's just Very Rusty, doing what he does best: being an annoyance.
Game 4951835

D

I'm not trying to be a crybaby about not getting enough points, It just does not seem right that you can be allowed to do this.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
That's just Very Rusty, doing what he does best: being an annoyance.
Game 4951835

D

I played under the time controls agreed upon at the start of the game!

So just deal with it !

You call others a troll and you got your nose stuck in everything going on in the forums! Of course you don't play much chess, so I guess you have to do something to occupy your time on here.

Originally posted by clandarkfire
I'm not trying to be a crybaby about not getting enough points, It just does not seem right that you can be allowed to do this.

You agreed to the time controls in advance! Don't agree to the time controls, then whine and cry about it afterwards.

There are people who purposely keep their ratings low so they can gain 30+ points from a game. I don't like that habit much either, but I have to deal with it!

As far as I am concerned you got the points you deserved !

Originally posted by clandarkfire
Oh thanks, I didn't see that thread. Its just that its not fair for players to delay games for months, in hope of losing less points. For example:

I started Game 4951853 about two months ago, when my opponent was rated 1800. For the first 25 moves, he always responded rapidly, up to 4 or 5 moves a day. However, as soon as it became apparent th ...[text shortened]... nk does not work, here is the URL: http://www.redhotpawn.com/core/playchess.php?gameid=4951835

Sorry to mess up you plan bud ! NOT !! You also are obviously rated quite a bit higher than your rating shows, I notice you go between 1100-1400, back to 1100 then 1400...You play considerably stronger than a 1400 player.

Plus you have no gameload to speak of...I actually had 300 + games going during our game, if you had taken the time to have a look! The tougher the moves get, I slow down, to give the game more thought. Of course you are going to get quick moves in the opening.

I don't know where you get I was moving 4 and 5 times a day unless you are talking just one day? The game only went around 22 or 23 moves! Very well done for an 1100 player that you were showing at the time. 😉 !

I for one would sure like to know where you got the other 2 moves that were never played????

I know 1800 players that can't see a mate in 5 yet you can, I am very impressed !!!

Originally posted by Very Rusty
Sorry to mess up you plan bud ! NOT !! You also are obviously rated quite a bit higher than your rating shows, I notice you go between 1100-1400, back to 1100 then 1400...You play considerably stronger than a 1400 player.

Plus you have no gameload to speak of...I actually had 300 + games going during our game, if you had taken the time to have a look! ...[text shortened]... yed????

I know 1800 players that can't see a mate in 5 yet you can, I am very impressed !!!

Oh my god! Chill out!

First of all, my rating is truly in the 1200 to 1350 range, and I dont see any incredible tactics in that game, maybe you just dont play like a 1700...

If you look at my rating graph, you will see that my only large rating fall was a couple months ago, when I lost my internet connection, and was not online for nearly a month.

I know I have no gameload to speak of... I have had 150 or so games in progress, and realize that I cannot improve in this way. I, for one, want to improve, and as I am a kid with other things to do, cannot improve with more than 50 games in progress. I was fully aware that you had all those games going, but you certainly always replied within a few hours, and when I checked your profile, It always said "Last moved 15 seconds ago", or something. I hope you arent honestly try to tell me that those last three moves took you exactly 21 days each to come up with the right move.

And lastly, as I also play OTB, I can assure you my rating is somewhere in th 1200s.

If you are calling me a sandbagger, I swear I am not, and I hope you believe me.

Originally posted by Very Rusty
I played under the time controls agreed upon at the start of the game!

So just deal with it !

You call others a troll and you got your nose stuck in everything going on in the forums! Of course you don't play much chess, so I guess you have to do something to occupy your time on here.

I am here to play chess, and I dont know what you are talking about as to me getting my nose stuck up in the forums. Like I said I am here to get better.

Originally posted by Very Rusty
You agreed to the time controls in advance! Don't agree to the time controls, then whine and cry about it afterwards.

There are people who purposely keep their ratings low so they can gain 30+ points from a game. I don't like that habit much either, but I have to deal with it!

As far as I am concerned you got the points you deserved !

And once again, I'm not trying to be crybaby, I just dont think that waiting till the last second is good sportsmanship.

And as I have already said, I dont keep my rating low, I guess I'm just not as talented as you. However, this discussion should have nothing to do with chess abilities.

Originally posted by clandarkfire
I am here to play chess, and I dont know what you are talking about as to me getting my nose stuck up in the forums. Like I said I am here to get better.

IF you would look at who the quote is for before saying anything, it would have made you look a little brighter.

Originally posted by clandarkfire
Oh my god! Chill out!

First of all, my rating is truly in the 1200 to 1350 range, and I dont see any incredible tactics in that game, maybe you just dont play like a 1700...

If you look at my rating graph, you will see that my only large rating fall was a couple months ago, when I lost my internet connection, and was not online for nearly a month h 1200s.

If you are calling me a sandbagger, I swear I am not, and I hope you believe me.

So if you are a 1200 player, how does your rating get to almost 1400, and why do you say in your profile you are 1600 player OTB?

I may not play like a 1700 player, but you will not convince me you are a 1200 player either!

Originally posted by Very Rusty
So if you are a 1200 player, how does your rating get to almost 1400, and why do you say in your profile you are 1600 player OTB?

I may not play like a 1700 player, but you will not convince me you are a 1200 player either!

I said 1200-1350, and you as well as I know that everyone has rating spurts. The rating on my profile is the NWSRS rating (Northwest Scholastic Rating System), which is for anyone under 18. I guess it works a little different than USCF, as only a couple tournaments I have been to are rated by USCF. My 1600 is equivalent, at least as I have only played a few games with that system, to 1200 USCF. My understanding of the rating system is that USCF is usually about 200 lower than the ratings here.

Are you saying that I resigned lots of games that were not lost to get a lower rating? Why would I do that? I have not won any tournaments, and am certainly not a sandbagger.

For your convienience, I have changed the rating in my profile.