19550 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
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!!!!!
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.
Many, many years ago, when I was extremely anally retentive.
I just do crazy stuff now. :-)
Learning 1.e4 e5 thoroughly
by Chicken_Monster a few minutes ago
Bug, draw when you won with the clock
by pfren a few minutes ago
My Games at State
by Daaaannywin16 a few minutes ago
Paws protecting the King and back rank mate
by KalashNK 6 minutes ago
Chessbazaar's Dubrovnik 4" crimson problem?
by burke3gd 9 minutes ago
3/2/2015 - Back Door Entry
by calum011082 11 minutes ago
by aggressivesociopath 13 minutes ago
Sixteen Reasons Why Chess Is Not Good For You
by DiscoveredCzech 19 minutes ago
What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today
by Eseles 19 minutes ago
Open Sicilian and Najdorf English Attack
by Chicken_Monster 21 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!