The best win is calculated as the post-game rating, not the pre-game rating. I think it should be pre-game rating, because the player you beat had a certain rating when you beat them, and then it went down because you beat them. Am I wrong here?

i agree with you, but the problem with this might be that it could cause certain rating incoherences since the games lost/won in the inbetween time wouldnt be concidered.

^^ Good point.. looks like yer right.. the game ye are thinkin of, the player was 2054 when ye beat him, he dropped to 2035 as a result of yer win and that is what ye are marked as having beaten..  

Aye, yer right, i also reckon it would make more sense if it could report the rank in the best win section before it recalculates.

Alright, juuust to play devils advocate for the sake of devil's advocacy: 

The rating after the fact more closely represents the rating of both people involved in the game. What it is saying is that the after-the-fact rating is and was the actual rating of play. You played better than your old rating (and were therefore, in an actual sense rated higher) and your opponent was actually worse than his previous rating, as the game attests.

Ratings in this sense aren't points you rack up - it is an attempt to express, roughly, the skill of chessplayers. What the system is indicating is that the player you beat, in truth, is most closely represented by the 2035 than the 2054.

That is, I'm assuming, the logic of it.

Never make assumptions.

First rule of auditing and life!!!!!

I assume you have a terrible life if involved in auditing.

If my best win is against a 2000 player, and I play someone where right when I beat them their rating is 2025, then it is not intuitive that I don't get the 2025 in my 'best'. It should go both ways, when I lose to someone, if I am their highest rated opponent then my pre-game rating should go there.

I still think this, though Rael makes an interesting point. I just disagree.

Oh, for all intents and purposes I agree with you Ozzie. I just wanted to speculate as to what the counter-reasoning might be is all, and that's the best I could come up with.

ih8sens wrote: I assume you have a terrible life if involved in auditing.

---

Many, many years ago, when I was extremely anally retentive. 

I just do crazy stuff now. :-)

 

The problem becomes players who don't have many games completed. If a person is say 9-0 on the site, they could have amuch larger rating than what they really are.