I just recently had a new best win (versus stats_man) but it has not updated on my profile any ideas?

strats_man was rated 1867 after you won that game. Your best win was against a member rated 1875 after you beat him.

so, it's their rating after the game has finished?

P_U_N

Yes, welcome to one of the crappiest features Chess.com offers. When I was rated like 1500, I beat one of my friends who was well over 1900. But because I was rated so much lower than him, his rating after the game dropped to 1850, which is my "best win". But seriously, I beat a 1900 player!! =/

Why Chess.com does this, I have no idea? When you agree to a match, you agree to the rating you see in front of you. If you accept a challenge from a player rated 1683, then that's the caliber of opponent you expect to face. He or she had to earn that rating in the first place, so that's the true measure of the opponent that you beat, not the adjusted ratings.

Moreover, the adjusted ratings of "best win" are highly subjective. If you were ranked 2800 when you beat that 1683 player, then your "best win" will probably be something close to 1683 because that player will lose like maybe 1 point for losing that game. But if you were rated 860 when you beat that 1683 player, your "best win" would only be like 1550 because that players rating would tank after that kind of loss. I think this makes no sense because regardless of your own rating, you still beat the same player with the same skill sets regardless of who he or she is playing against.

Ratings are applied post-game because the system supposes that the quality of the player is determined by the sum of all of his opponents including you. a 2100 who loses to a 1300 is going to be lower rated than a 2100 who loses to a 1900. That's the rating system as we know it.

So, doesn't it make sense therefor that when the 2100 player loses to the 1300 player and his rating drops to 2000, that he was actually a 2000 player? The quality of his play is rated 2000, no longer 2100. The rating system tries to determine what quality of player you would be after playing everyone and everything an infinite number of times, so it wants to find the final product. If you are a 2100 rated player and lose to a 1300, you're actually a 2000 rated player.

I don't know if this makes sense but, to sum it up, if they were 2100 and then lost and dropped to 2000, they were really a 2000 player all along.

Mekhami,

I think you reasoning behind the subject is pretty sound. I thought of the same point as well. But my point is this, then. If that player was "really" a 2000 player all along, then why did this rating system award that player a 2100 rating in the first place? Doesn't your logic imply that the rating system is inherently flawed to begin with? I mean he had to go through all of the work to earn a rating of 2100, i.e. beating higher players, and after so many games, with the rating system calculating his playing strength "after everyone played everyone an infinite number of times", the system determined his strength to be 2100. Either the system itself is flawed, or the posting your "best win" as the adjusted rating is flawed.

If a 2100 loses to a 1300, I don't think the first logical assumption is to conclude that the 2100 player is not 2100 strength. Rather, I think it's more logical to conclude that the 1300 player is the one who needs the serious ratings adjustment because it's obvious that he is of 2000-2400 playing strength (some 700-1100 points higher than his current rating). It's more sandbagging than anything else!

I would think this should be changed - as long as both opponents have played a minimal number of games - that would effect drastic rate changes ( like it does when you first start here)  - It's all good though.

P_U_N, yes it is a good idea :)   Having a best win is brilliant, but is disheartening when it doesn't show as best win.  Have you added it to the features request thread ? or sent it in as site feedback?

Same thing happened to me!!! Me, a 1367 rating guy beat a 2058 elo rating person and after the game, his rating was about 2018. It sucks becaues I was versing a person who was 2018 and is now, 2115. I know I shouldn't be complaining, but can't they put the rating of the person (or alien) when playing the game rather than after losing the game.

Nope.  maybe I will though.

My best win is a NM http://www.chess.com/livechess/profile/Cats4Sale

The logic behind using the after rating is circular:

Me - "I just beat a great player."

You - "Sorry, but you only beat a mediocre player."

Me - "But he is a great player, he has a terrific record against other strong players.

You - "True, but he lost to you and you stink. Therefore he is a mediocre player."

Using the "after" rating is a little more subtle but the exact same reasoning lies behind it. The "best win ever" is one (crude) method of measuring how strong a player is. Using the after rating effectively means that the player's own rating of 1300 has been built into the measuring process. You have assumed the value of the very quantity that you are attempting to measure.

Aside from that, using the after value is contrary to what any reasonable person would expect a "best win" to be. It is also demoralizing and no doubt bad for business.

On a completely unrelated topic, did you know that no world chess champion has ever lost a champuionship match? It's true. As soon as someone loses they aren't world champion anymore and the record-keeping system uses the "after" status.

I just don't believe the "after method" is logical or accurate. I don't think the "best win" is a way to measure a player's strength. Rather, the "best win" is exactly that, a player's best win.

Nowhere in any other sports, games, or competitions do you have this "after method" of rating performance. Take Super Bowl XLIII (43) as an example: did the Giants beat a team that was undefeated 18-0 or did they beat a team that was 18-1? Doesn't it kind of not make sense to say that the Giants beat a team with one loss to win the Super Bowl? I would say they beat an opponent who went 18-0 to win the championship.

If you knocked out the reigning heavyweight boxing champion, then isn't it fair to say that you knocked out the defending champion rather than to say that you just beat some random fighter?

If you're playing poker against a pro with a million dollars, and you win all his money, then doesn't it make more sense to say that you beat a million-dollar pro rather than to say that you beat a pro with no money?