28 Aug 08
Originally posted by cheshirecatstevensIt is really annoying when that happens and I made the same suggestion as you once! The reason it can't be done is to do with your rating, not the opponent. Suppose you started 20 games with players at the same rating as yourself. You would expect 16 points for each win if both your ratings are locked. If you won them all you would get 320 points. This puts your rating far too high. Therefore ratings have to keep changing after every result.
Is it possible to have ratings for a game "locked" at the start of a game for the purpose of ratings calulation? I have had experince with players rated higher than me waiting until there rating is lower to resign for a loss.
28 Aug 08
Originally posted by cheshirecatstevensWhat about people who win games against players who jumped up 500 rating points while playing their game?
Is it possible to have ratings for a game "locked" at the start of a game for the purpose of ratings calulation? I have had experince with players rated higher than me waiting until there rating is lower to resign for a loss.
28 Aug 08
Originally posted by MixoPretty well explained. Plus, people would complain also that they started a game with a player rated 1280 and won, but now they are rated 1395, but they only got points for beating a 1280 player and would start a thread like this asking for it to be based on current rating.
It is really annoying when that happens and I made the same suggestion as you once! The reason it can't be done is to do with your rating, not the opponent. Suppose you started 20 games with players at the same rating as yourself. You would expect 16 points for each win if both your ratings are locked. If you won them all you would get 320 points. This puts your rating far too high. Therefore ratings have to keep changing after every result.
It is now based on current rating, so it should stay that way.
Either way, someone will think it's better the other way. This is the better of the 2 options considering the sandbagging a user could do if they started several games after dropping their rating.
P-
28 Aug 08
If the rating would be calculated from the rating you have when the game is started - here's my plan how to gain 3000+ points in no time:
First I would lose a lot of games so I get a rating of 800 points.
Then I would start hundreds, perhaps thousands of games, with opponents around 1400. For each game I won I get 30 poins. After only a hundred won games I would have a rating of 3800 points, and I would be the number one in RHP! (Yeah!!!)
With the current system, rating calculations are done with the ratings at the end of ghe games, you cannot do a stunt as the one above.
28 Aug 08
Originally posted by CrowleyMy argument would be that you base oyur decision to play a person based on their rating. At the start of a game it is a known. That is what you agreed to play against. For a real example I played 8 games against a user I lost 7 of them at the start of these games this player was rated 1700ish. They have stalled a lost position and their rating is now 1200ish. So I got the joy of defeting a 1200 rated player 1 time and losing to the same player 7 times as a 1650-1700 player. I got about a 3 point rating bump. Is that an accurate use of ratings? I knew before hand I was playing a much higher rated opponent. I'm not trying to come off like z00t and his ratings conspericy but I am getting frustrated that I have put some effort and work into my chess I have been winning games against players that were rated higher than me at the start of the game. Then get stalled on the win to the point that the situation is reversed and I get the points for beating a 1200-1300 player when they better than that. The example I gave is just one of many simalar situations I am in. My whole point in this is that you agree to play a certin level of player and then get con'ed of out just rewards.
What about people who win games against players who jumped up 500 rating points while playing their game?
28 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by cheshirecatstevensA rating is only a snapshot in time. If I want to know how skilled a player is, his rating says nothing.
My argument would be that you base oyur decision to play a person based on their rating. At the start of a game it is a known. That is what you agreed to play against. For a real example I played 8 games against a user I lost 7 of them at the start of these games this player was rated 1700ish. They have stalled a lost position and their rating is is is that you agree to play a certin level of player and then get con'ed of out just rewards.
Go to his profile, and observe his graph, and you can see if he presently has a too low rating or a too high one.
28 Aug 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou nailed my point for me. When you agree to a game the person has x rating you will either win for w points or lose for lpoints. It is when players save losses to minimise rating point losses is what I'm talking about. My topic is based that it is hard for me to get a accurate rating when I beat a 1700 and get 2-3 points for it. I understand from your earlier post how this can be manipulated the other way. I'm just frustrated that when I work hard for a win against players x,y, and z I want my profits. Instead of picking up wins against x,y, z who have lowered their rating to sub 200 of my rating.
A rating is only a snapshot in time. If I want to know how skilled a player is, his rating says nothing.
Go to his profile, and observe his graph, and you can see if he presently has a too low rating or a too high one.
28 Aug 08
Originally posted by cheshirecatstevensWhat will you complain about when you're playing a game with a player rated 1950 and you started the game with them rated 1480?
You nailed my point for me. When you agree to a game the person has x rating you will either win for w points or lose for lpoints. It is when players save losses to minimise rating point losses is what I'm talking about. My topic is based that it is hard for me to get a accurate rating when I beat a 1700 and get 2-3 points for it. I understand fro ...[text shortened]... stead of picking up wins against x,y, z who have lowered their rating to sub 200 of my rating.
It works both ways, and there is more room for abuse based on starting ratings.
Please read all points in thread.
P-
28 Aug 08
Originally posted by cheshirecatstevensGaining / losing rating points does not change how well you actually play chess.
You nailed my point for me. When you agree to a game the person has x rating you will either win for w points or lose for lpoints. It is when players save losses to minimise rating point losses is what I'm talking about. My topic is based that it is hard for me to get a accurate rating when I beat a 1700 and get 2-3 points for it. I understand fro ...[text shortened]... stead of picking up wins against x,y, z who have lowered their rating to sub 200 of my rating.
If you genuinely beat a player rated way over your true level, then you'd soon lose any gain 'cos that what the rating system is designed to do. Same goes for losing against someone way beneath you - you'll soon get the points back.
The rating system is flawed in that it can only ever 'nearly reflect' how well anyone is playing - but it would be totally screwed if you were to base rating adjustment on the start rating.
28 Aug 08
Originally posted by orangutanShifting topic slightly I think it's a great improvement that tournament entry ratings consider your performance over the last 100 days.
The rating system is flawed in that it can only ever 'nearly reflect' how well anyone is playing
200 or 300 days would be even better because fewer tournaments would be scooped up by players who have previously been 300 points higher than the tournament band and are building up again after a rating crash.
28 Aug 08
Originally posted by orangutanWhat a comment. Did I imply rating changes how well any player plays? I do realize it is a measuring tool.
Gaining / losing rating points does not change how well you actually play chess.
If you genuinely beat a player rated way over your true level, then you'd soon lose any gain 'cos that what the rating system is designed to do. Same goes for losing against someone way beneath you - you'll soon get the points back.
The rating system is flawed in that it ...[text shortened]... but it would be totally screwed if you were to base rating adjustment on the start rating.
If you look at the example I used I lost 7 games to player rated well above me. I lost rating points on each one. The balance you write of is suppose to come back in the form of more rating points gained for winning above my rating. For example if I lose 7 of the eight games I lose 5+5+5+5+5+5+5=35
My win should have given max 32. Insted I get 3 points because they dumped losses in bulk. So the way I see it I'm short 29 points from a more accurate measure.
28 Aug 08
Originally posted by FabianFnas© Ragnorak 2007-2008.
If the rating would be calculated from the rating you have when the game is started - here's my plan how to gain 3000+ points in no time:
First I would lose a lot of games so I get a rating of 800 points.
Then I would start hundreds, perhaps thousands of games, with opponents around 1400. For each game I won I get 30 poins. After only a hundred won g ...[text shortened]... ions are done with the ratings at the end of ghe games, you cannot do a stunt as the one above.
D