1. SubscriberMarinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    tbc
    Joined
    18 Feb '04
    Moves
    61719
    03 Apr '05 08:47
    Is it just me, or should 8 players who share the same rating (say:1471) have the same rank as well?? If there are 25 people on the site who are rated 1471 then how can one of them be ranked 1000 and another ranked 1025?
  2. Standard memberrhb
    Ginger Scum
    Paranoia
    Joined
    23 Sep '03
    Moves
    15902
    03 Apr '05 11:50
    valid point, but does it *really* matter?
  3. Joined
    21 Aug '03
    Moves
    384631
    03 Apr '05 12:04
    decimal places?
  4. Standard memberAlcra
    Lazy Sod
    Everywhere
    Joined
    12 Oct '04
    Moves
    8623
    03 Apr '05 13:45
    win / loss ratio?

    Time at that rating?

    Draws?

  5. Gloucestershire , UK
    Joined
    16 Aug '04
    Moves
    21928
    03 Apr '05 14:02
    Originally posted by pineapple42
    decimal places?
    ya
  6. SubscriberMarinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    tbc
    Joined
    18 Feb '04
    Moves
    61719
    03 Apr '05 21:43
    Originally posted by pineapple42
    decimal places?
    How would that work? you can't put decimals into rating.
  7. Standard memberflexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    Chesstralia
    Joined
    18 Aug '03
    Moves
    54533
    04 Apr '05 07:58
    Originally posted by marinakatomb
    Is it just me, or should 8 players who share the same rating (say:1471) have the same rank as well?? If there are 25 people on the site who are rated 1471 then how can one of them be ranked 1000 and another ranked 1025?
    i guess optimal would be if all 25 people rated 1471 had a ranking of 1000,
    then all the people rated 1472 had a ranking of 1026.

    but of course: DOE IT MATTER?
  8. Standard memberXanthosNZ
    Cancerous Bus Crash
    p^2.sin(phi)
    Joined
    06 Sep '04
    Moves
    25076
    04 Apr '05 08:52
    Originally posted by flexmore
    i guess optimal would be if all 25 people rated 1471 had a ranking of 1000,
    then all the people rated 1472 had a ranking of 1026.

    but of course: DOE IT MATTER?
    Surely you mean people with rating of 1470 have a ranking of 1026.
  9. Standard memberflexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    Chesstralia
    Joined
    18 Aug '03
    Moves
    54533
    04 Apr '05 08:55
    Originally posted by XanthosNZ
    Surely you mean people with rating of 1470 have a ranking of 1026.
    actualy - smartypants - i meant people rated 1470 have a ranking of 1025
  10. SubscriberMarinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    tbc
    Joined
    18 Feb '04
    Moves
    61719
    07 Apr '05 20:07
    Originally posted by flexmore
    but of course: DOES IT MATTER?
    It is my sworn duty as defender of all that is petty and melodramatic to raise these issues to somehow boost my ranking a bit 😛
  11. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78924
    11 Apr '05 19:29
    Originally posted by flexmore
    i guess optimal would be if all 25 people rated 1471 had a ranking of 1000,
    then all the people rated 1472 had a ranking of 1026.

    but of course: DOE IT MATTER?
    You could then sort them by highest rating in last month (which is what tournament eligibility goes on) the odds of two people being the same would then be sufficiently remote that it really wouldn't matter. Maybe this is what they do.
  12. Standard memberGatecrasher
    Whale watching
    33°36'S 26°53'E
    Joined
    05 Feb '04
    Moves
    41150
    13 Apr '05 01:51
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Maybe this is what they do.
    Nope. If our ratings are equal, we are ranked in boring old alphabetical order...

    If I had progrmmed RHP, I guess I might have defined "Rating" as a real number, but clearly it has been implemented as an integer.


Back to Top