perhaps @ admins should just delete the part of the thread
How are scores calculated?
Sort:
May 12, 2022
0
#23
LosChessquire wrote:
grable wrote:
LosChessquire wrote:
...they drove 90% of high rated players away [citation needed], ...
High rated FFA is pretty much dead now. Where are the hourly 2500+, 2600+ games being played? You'll be lucky to catch those once a week.
The Leaderboard now starts at 2645, we're down to 5162 Active FFA players. Go through the archive for the top 20 FFA players, and see how many Rapid games they've played this past month. The top 5 active FFA Players have played 20 FFA Rapid games combined these past 2 weeks, while Hest accounted for 9 of those games.
Most of Hest's last nine games are 1900+.
May 13, 2022
0
#24
HSCCCalebBrown wrote:
perhaps @ admins should just delete the part of the thread
They need to finish deleting the player base first _/¯(ツ)¯\_
May 13, 2022
0
#25
Radon wrote:
HSCCCalebBrown wrote:
perhaps @ admins should just delete the part of the thread
They need to finish deleting the player base first _/¯(ツ)¯\_
LOL.
grable wrote:
If only someone had written an article about how the scoring system works.
...oh wait https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/how-the-rating-system-works-3
Thank you for the link. I had joined this group a while ago but was never active so never found out about this article in particular.
HSCCCalebBrown wrote:
So, they morph the rating system as the rating gets higher. For say, a normal 1800 game, first and second both gain points, and 3rd and 4th loose points. In a game that is say, 2200(which was about that game, as per averages), 1st gains points, 2nd loses a small amount of points, and 3rd/4th lose points. In a 2500 rated game, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th all lose the same amount of points. This is because they want high rated players to play for first. hope this helps!
It does help, thanks.
Although it doesn't make much sense to me. Especially considering that in order to find a game against player of my strength, say 1700-1900, it takes a lot of time and at some point I just decide to cancel the custom parameters and go for plus-minus infinite.
Which results in games like that one of the screenshot where the avg rtg of the game is high enough to have scores like those where the lowest rated players are the most penalized.
Thank you everyone for the replies, very helpful. I just wanna say a few words.
I started playing a few games of 4 PC about one or two years ago and then stopped until I started again this week. I almost soon felt some confusion regarding the rating system in place as it felt different from the time I played it for the first time.
I obviously saw the preview of the scores when the game starts and I had an idea of what that meant but for the most part it was unknown to me.
I won my first game after the long break and gained like 30 points (my RD was probably high though) so thought ok that's really good, I can climb the ladder pretty fast. The average rating of that game was like 1700. Now I see that it was misleading at best.
I will read the article provided now but I can already tell, like many before me it seems, I'm more fond of the previous rating system.
May 13, 2022
0
#29
@Deadban I think that variants should automatically put limits on everything, at least for sub-2200. Like a 1500 player doesn't face, say, anyone above 1800. Or a 1800 player doesn't face anyone above 2100. but anways.
@grable reading your post again, I wonder if I misinterpreted it. If so, I apologize
HSCCCalebBrown wrote:
@Deadban I think that variants should automatically put limits on everything, at least for sub-2200. Like a 1500 player doesn't face, say, anyone above 1800. Or a 1800 player doesn't face anyone above 2100. but anways.
@grable reading your post again, I wonder if I misinterpreted it. If so, I apologize
As he mentioned, that would take way too long to get a game.
May 13, 2022
0
#31
LosChessquire wrote:
HSCCCalebBrown wrote:
@Deadban I think that variants should automatically put limits on everything, at least for sub-2200. Like a 1500 player doesn't face, say, anyone above 1800. Or a 1800 player doesn't face anyone above 2100. but anways.
@grable reading your post again, I wonder if I misinterpreted it. If so, I apologize
As he mentioned, that would take way too long to get a game.
Yeah, but 1800's playing with 1500 have the chance of losing plenty of rating.
May 13, 2022
0
#32
LosChessquire wrote:
HSCCCalebBrown wrote:
@Deadban I think that variants should automatically put limits on everything, at least for sub-2200. Like a 1500 player doesn't face, say, anyone above 1800. Or a 1800 player doesn't face anyone above 2100. but anways.
@grable reading your post again, I wonder if I misinterpreted it. If so, I apologize
As he mentioned, that would take way too long to get a game.
So my concern is we do not retain lower rated or new players, in my opinion bc they often face people that are way stronger than them. My idea would be to simplify the cues, and try to put people in more automatically. For example, I think we should give, say, a new 1500 play, one ffa rapid option for a 1300-1600 cue. And this would be the same for 1300/1400/1600 players. So you only have a few clear cues, which will not put people in with too much stronger players. This probably isn't feasible for 2400s, but otherwise.
This is probably moot because I don't think chess.com variants wants to go down this road, but anyway.
I wasn't trying to control him, though I can see how you read it that way. I just strongly disagree with his underlying arguement
My bad, I could have worded it better. I don't know why people are rude, it makes them childish and drives people away from them. You get absolutely nothing from it. And that should be obvious enough not to do it, but Grable did it anyways.
All good Often my wording isn't clear. I should note that I have nothing against Grable, I just strongly disagree with him on this issue
Same, I have nothing against him, but his actions were unnecessary.