Use ratings from start of game

Sure to have been suggested many times before. So what's the reason for not calculating the points according to what rating the 2 players were at the START of the game?

It would protect one player's rating if the other bombs for any reason.

Exactly, some people wait until the other person has won a couple games before giving mate. Holding off the win till the very last hours. I myself have done this but it's a bit of a waste of time. Only did it once.

There was a vote on that subject a while back. It was voted that the ratings at the end of the game are used in the calculations.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/vote/result.php?voteid=7

77 v 33
A convincing percentage victory but only 110 votes! How well was the vote publicised?
Can we try it again????

Sigh! 😳 It doesn't matter. That would be an abuse of democracy wouldn't it?

Originally posted by Mixo
77 v 33
A convincing percentage victory but only 110 votes! How well was the vote publicised?
Can we try it again????

Sigh! 😳 It doesn't matter. That would be an abuse of democracy wouldn't it?

Considering it was a year and a half ago, I doubt it's still representative of the current subscribers opinions. Look at the number of voters for the polls in '06, the last two have 18 times as many participants.

EDIT: Maybe a fair solution would be to keep the current counted votes and allow those who haven't yet voted to do so.

Originally posted by Mixo
Sure to have been suggested many times before. So what's the reason for not calculating the points according to what rating the 2 players were at the START of the game?

It would protect one player's rating if the other bombs for any reason.

However, it has the opposite effect if a player starts out with an abnormally low rating then you've got a problem with your suggested method.

Perhaps the highest of the two could be used?

Here is the next thread when this rule changes:

Make ratings be calculated at END of game!

I started a game with a player rated near 1250. Now they are rated 1800 and I had one of my best wins against them. I only got a few points, but should have got many more.

Please change this rule, we should have a vote!

Originally posted by Peakite
However, it has the opposite effect if a player starts out with an abnormally low rating then you've got a problem with your suggested method.

Perhaps the highest of the two could be used?

Highest of the two? Why? That just inflates ratings.

P-

Change the rating system.

it doesn't matter on how they calculate ratings!! The goal with ratings is not to collect as many points as you possibly can (as engine users think) but to use it as an ***idea*** on your skill level as compared to fellow players on this site. If everyone has the same system, then it is FINE.

🙄

Originally posted by Ramned
it doesn't matter on how they calculate ratings!! The goal with ratings is not to collect as many points as you possibly can (as engine users think) but to use it as an ***[b]idea*** on your skill level as compared to fellow players on this site. If everyone has the same system, then it is FINE.

🙄[/b]

That's right.

P-

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Here is the next thread when this rule changes:

[b]Make ratings be calculated at END of game!

I started a game with a player rated near 1250. Now they are rated 1800 and I had one of my best wins against them. I only got a few points, but should have got many more.

Please change this rule, we should have a vote![/b]

If a 1250 player has a win against an 1800 player, one or both of the players should be checked for engine use immediately.

I agree with Mixo's point, but only because of the fact that i've been burned so many times by players being timed out of so many games, then finishing my games......Lastpawnstanding would be a prime culprit of this, and everytime i play him it's in a tournament, so it's not as if i chose to play him....which i wouldn't do.

Originally posted by Mixo
Sure to have been suggested many times before. So what's the reason for not calculating the points according to what rating the 2 players were at the START of the game?

It would protect one player's rating if the other bombs for any reason.

I also don't like it when someone gets timed out in several games, then
takes a win over me. The rating as it is in the beginning of the game should
be used to protect from that. The possibility that someone gets timed out in
several games, then wins and his/her rating just pops right back up because
the rating at the beginning of the game is used, is not as bad as it is now.
Now the player who gets timed out a lot pops back halfway, but the other
player drops to a ridiculously low rating and has to start working his/her way
back up.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
If a 1250 player has a win against an 1800 player, one or both of the players should be checked for engine use immediately.

Oh really? Because the ELO system itself dictates that a 1250 player will score 0.0404 against an 1800 player (i.e. wins one in 20 / draws one in 10).

And if you reread Phlab's post he didn't say anything about a 1250 player beating an 1800 player but instead talked of a player having a 1250 rating at the start of the game and an 1800 one at the end of it.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
If a 1250 player has a win against an 1800 player, one or both of the players should be checked for engine use immediately.

.

No, no, no.

It can be done, you can win

Game 971127

I am quite sure that neither player involved in that game is an engine user, even though the lower rated player won convincingly 😉

Edit - I think that the ratings at the start of the game should be those used to dictate won points. This I think would stop the large ratings drops - someone dropping from 1800 to 1100 would find it more difficult to get games with 1700+ rated players as they would be losing too many points for a loss. That way they would need to slowly rise back though the ranks only gaining in a few points for their "easy wins" on the way back up to their genuine rating.