# Pegged rating

Bosse de Nage
Site Ideas 06 Jan '10 11:37
1. Bosse de Nage
ZellulĂ¤rer Automat
06 Jan '10 11:37
It's annoying to lose to an opponent with an equal rating to yours who for some reason, usually time-out related, then plummets a few hundred points but manages to beat you, dealing a much bigger blow to your rating than ought to be the case. This problem could be obviated by pegging two opponents' ratings at their starting positions for that game. So a 1700 who drops to 1100 but beats his 1650 opponent is treated as a 1700 for that game.
2. 06 Jan '10 13:12
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It's annoying to lose to an opponent with an equal rating to yours who for some reason, usually time-out related, then plummets a few hundred points but manages to beat you, dealing a much bigger blow to your rating than ought to be the case. This problem could be obviated by pegging two opponents' ratings at their starting positions for that ga ...[text shortened]... e. So a 1700 who drops to 1100 but beats his 1650 opponent is treated as a 1700 for that game.
Does this mean that you want the rating calculation based upon the ratings you have when the game was started?
3. zozozozo
06 Jan '10 13:19
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It's annoying to lose to an opponent with an equal rating to yours who for some reason, usually time-out related, then plummets a few hundred points but manages to beat you, dealing a much bigger blow to your rating than ought to be the case. This problem could be obviated by pegging two opponents' ratings at their starting positions for that ga ...[text shortened]... e. So a 1700 who drops to 1100 but beats his 1650 opponent is treated as a 1700 for that game.
I think its kind of RHP's thing that the rating is calculated at the end of the game?

Your argument could also be turned around. If ratings are calculated from the start a 1700 plays a 1700, but the last 1700 is still rising in rating, while the game finishes he got a rating of 1900. The (1st) 1700 guy manages to win tho, but doesnt get as much points eventho the player he played is actually 1900-strong. Thats not fair either is it?

Ratings just fluctuate a bit, that will never change.
4. SwissGambit
Caninus Interruptus
06 Jan '10 17:55
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It's annoying to lose to an opponent with an equal rating to yours who for some reason, usually time-out related, then plummets a few hundred points but manages to beat you, dealing a much bigger blow to your rating than ought to be the case. This problem could be obviated by pegging two opponents' ratings at their starting positions for that ga ...[text shortened]... e. So a 1700 who drops to 1100 but beats his 1650 opponent is treated as a 1700 for that game.
The trouble continues when the guy comes back as an 1100 and continues dealing big blows to every opponent's rating as he works his way back up to his proper grade.

That's why we need rating floors.
5. 06 Jan '10 18:43
Originally posted by SwissGambit
The trouble continues when the guy comes back as an 1100 and continues dealing big blows to every opponent's rating as he works his way back up to his proper grade.

That's why we need rating floors.
He just undoes the damage he did by resigning all those games in the first place.

Imagine getting points from a game you were losing, which puts your rating above where it should be. The least he could do is challenge the people he was winning against to get their rating back down where it should be.

The other alternative is to play a bunch of people, taking their ratings down a bit, who then play others, and take their rating down a bit, finally reaching the guy who's rating was pushed up in the first place.

If his rating was pegged, he could no-longer do it.

This is why we don't need rating floors.
6. SwissGambit
Caninus Interruptus
06 Jan '10 19:141 edit
Originally posted by gezza
He just undoes the damage he did by resigning all those games in the first place.

Imagine getting points from a game you were losing, which puts your rating above where it should be. The least he could do is challenge the people he was winning against to get their rating back down where it should be.

The other alternative is to play a bunch of people, t f his rating was pegged, he could no-longer do it.

This is why we don't need rating floors.
Hey, you're late! 48 minutes to respond.
7. 06 Jan '10 20:51
Originally posted by SwissGambit
rating floors.
Rec'd
8. 06 Jan '10 21:153 edits
Originally posted by heinzkat
Rec'd
I think the rating maths would start going wrong if it worked like this suggestion.

It will go wrong everywhere, but here is an somewhat unrealistic example to illustrate the point:

Imagine a 2000 rated player, and a 0 rated player.
They start 100 games, the 2000 rated player resigns them all:

This counts as 100 wins against a 2000 rated player for the 0 rated player, his rating climbs to (say) 3000, meanwhile the 2000 rated player's rating will go down to about 0

Now the players swap and repeat and their ratings inexorably climb without them playing a single full game. The reason this happens is, that if ratings are adjusted with respect to historical rating data then "conservation of total rating" is lost, which is an important property of the rating maths. It's a bit like getting interest on the maximum of this and last years bank balance. You can give all your money to someone else so you both get interest on the same money and the rhp bank goes bust.

With the current system if the players play the same trick then the player that started on 0 will be rated about 2000 by the end of the first 100 games, and the 2000 player will be rated 0 so nothing will be gained overall.
9. 06 Jan '10 21:41
They would be banned for violating the RULES
10. SwissGambit
Caninus Interruptus
06 Jan '10 21:47
Originally posted by iamatiger
I think the rating maths would start going wrong if it worked like this suggestion.

It will go wrong everywhere, but here is an somewhat unrealistic example to illustrate the point:

Imagine a 2000 rated player, and a 0 rated player.
They start 100 games, the 2000 rated player resigns them all:

This counts as 100 wins against a 2000 rated player f ...[text shortened]... the first 100 games, and the 2000 player will be rated 0 so nothing will be gained overall.
This sort of thing can happen under the current system, thanks to provisional ratings. Sure, they can't climb forever, but they can get off to a roaring good start.

Remember ?
11. 07 Jan '10 07:40
Originally posted by heinzkat
They would be banned for violating the RULES
Yes, but it will go wrong EVERYWHERE, not just when people are trying to take advantage of it.
12. 11 Jan '10 05:58
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It's annoying to lose to an opponent with an equal rating to yours who for some reason, usually time-out related, then plummets a few hundred points but manages to beat you, dealing a much bigger blow to your rating than ought to be the case. This problem could be obviated by pegging two opponents' ratings at their starting positions for that ga ...[text shortened]... e. So a 1700 who drops to 1100 but beats his 1650 opponent is treated as a 1700 for that game.
Another, related issue is if I am enjoying a game against an opponent with whom I am evenly matched. Say we are both approx 1500. If they don't move for a couple of weeks then skulls start to appear. If their other opponents time them out then it makes sense for me to do the same, because their rating has plunged and if I lose now then I forfeit vastly more points than I would have done otherwise.

I don't like taking skulls, but now I do in certain circumstances, even if I am enjoying the game. This doesn't get me many points (because my opponent has fallen to 1100 by now) but ensures I don't lose vast numbers of point.