02 Apr 05
I think they should go by the rating at the beginning of the game.
Its frustrating when someone has had a bunch of games timed out.. so suddenly they are like 300 points lower in their rating against me, but.. because they are still good players, beat me, so my rating drops much further than it should. .. this would end those arguments about people timing out lots of games at once but still continuing some of them like was complained about prior.
MIODude
02 Apr 05
Originally posted by MIODudeIt seems more natural to me too.
I think they should go by the rating at the beginning of the game.
Its frustrating when someone has had a bunch of games timed out.. so suddenly they are like 300 points lower in their rating against me, but.. because they are still good players, beat me, so my rating drops much further than it should. .. this would end those arguments about people timin ...[text shortened]... s of games at once but still continuing some of them like was complained about prior.
MIODude
02 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by MIODudeWhat if they had been mass T/O'd just before your game started and were rated 1100? And by the end of the game, they were up to 2300+. Which system would you want in place in that instance?
I think they should go by the rating at the beginning of the game.
Its frustrating when someone has had a bunch of games timed out.. so suddenly they are like 300 points lower in their rating against me, but.. because they are still good ...[text shortened]... ontinuing some of them like was complained about prior.
MIODude
What if a player wanted to manipulate the rating system a bit. A good player T/O's or resigns loads of games, and his rating is down at 1000. Then he starts loads and loads of games at that 1000 rating. He could potentially go through the ratings roof by playing loads of 1600 rated players.
This has been brought up a few times. There's a good thread waaaaay back in the site ideas forum, where all the pros and cons of both systems are discussed fairly intensively, but I can't be arsed looking for it now.
My opinion is that it should stay the same.
D
02 Apr 05
Originally posted by RagnorakYou certainly bring up some good arguments and so I think I'll stand myself corrected 🙂
What if they had been mass T/O'd just before your game started and were rated 1100? And by the end of the game, they were up to 2300+. Which system would you want in place in that instance?
What if a player wanted to manipulate the rating system a bit. A good player T/O's or resigns loads of games, and his rating is down at 1000. Then he starts loa ...[text shortened]... y, but I can't be arsed looking for it now.
My opinion is that it should stay the same.
D
02 Apr 05
If you want to be a real saddo! You can choose when you resign against an opponent on a prediction of his/her future rating. The higher their rating the less your rating will suffer.
You can look what their highest rating in the last 30 days was in comparison to their current rating.
Or check their public games and make some assessments of their forthcoming results.
02 Apr 05
Originally posted by RagnorakToo bad there couldn't be a middle road.. both ways seem to have these flaws. Do other sites have the same problems? I'm only on one other site, but haven't played enough games yet to figure out their rating system.
What if they had been mass T/O'd just before your game started and were rated 1100? And by the end of the game, they were up to 2300+. Which system would you want in place in that instance?
What if a player wanted to manipulate the rating system a bit. A good player T/O's or resigns loads of games, and his rating is down at 1000. Then he starts loa ...[text shortened]... y, but I can't be arsed looking for it now.
My opinion is that it should stay the same.
D
What if they used the rating that is used for banded tournaments? the highest rating in the last 30 days? Then, if someone did massive timeouts, the rating would still be judged on the higher .. and.. if you are playing someone, and they have gone through lots of timeouts, your score will still be reflective of that higher score.
04 Apr 05
Originally posted by MIODudeI resigned 50 games not so long ago. If your system was in place my rating would be well over 1800 by now as i'd be getting 30 points a game for beating 1300 players....
I think they should go by the rating at the beginning of the game.
Its frustrating when someone has had a bunch of games timed out.. so suddenly they are like 300 points lower in their rating against me, but.. because they are still good players, beat me, so my rating drops much further than it should. .. this would end those arguments about people timin ...[text shortened]... s of games at once but still continuing some of them like was complained about prior.
MIODude
04 Apr 05
Originally posted by MIODudeHow about you use the midpoint of the rating a) when the game began, anb b) when it ended. Not perfect, but it would dampen wild swings, but behave about as now for stable rated opponents
Too bad there couldn't be a middle road.. both ways seem to have these flaws. .
04 Apr 05
Originally posted by RookRAKHere's that thread I was referring to...
How about you use the midpoint of the rating a) when the game began, anb b) when it ended. Not perfect, but it would dampen wild swings, but behave about as now for stable rated opponents
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=15556&page=1
D