Forums

# How the rating system works

Sort:

4 Player chess uses the glicko2 rating system.

FFA:

(0<=X<=1. X gets smaller the higher the average rating of all players)

1st:  3 wins
2nd: X wins
3rd: X losses
4th: 3 losses

vs average rating of the game.

As a result, rating changes for 2nd an 3rd place are smaller in higher rated games.

Solo:

1st: 4 wins
2nd-4th: 1.33 losses

Players that are tied for points share the number of wins and losses for the tied positions.

Teams:

Each team receives a "team rating" first, which is calculated as follows:
Higher rated player in team * (2/3) + Lower rated player * (1/3)

In other words: A team's rating is weighed 2/3 toward the higher rated player.

Each player then gets one win or one loss vs. the opponents "team rating".

Rating Deviation aka Glicko RD = "Confidence that the rating is accurate". Players with very few games will have a high deviation and thus their rating changes will be large.

Players initially being with a deviation of 120, which will slowly drop to around 65 as more and more  games are played. This allows players to reach their "true rating" quickly.

Hover over ratings in the player popup to see the deviation (Glicko RD)

Ratings with a deviation greater than 100 are marked as provisional by a "?"

In other words, the "?" indicates the player has not played many games yet and his rating is likely not very accurate.

A player's rating deviation only has an affect on the player's own rating changes, but not on those of his opponents, or his teammate.

@NolanL

> Why did I lose rating points? I tied for second and was the last one to be checkmated (game #1723888)

tie for 2nd-3rd:
(2w+1l  + 2l+1w) /2

so 1.5 wins and 1.5 losses vs 1231 = -X

if you'd had low deviation of 70 or so, perhaps you'd gotten -5 or so. your high deviation of 104 explains the -13.7.

i don't like solo because 2nd loses as much as 3rd or 4th so players with no hope for 1st just resign instead of shooting for 2nd or 3rd to minimize loss.

solo used to be +4 -1 -1 -2, and thinking about it again, that might have been better.

thing is top players don't really resign, and it was them who suggested that 2nd=4th is true winner takes all.

what do you think?

i think -1 -1 -2 is good to prevent players from resigning, making for better games

how do i host a rated game?

you can't

then my question is... how are rated games created?

New Game => Play

or if you customized your play settings:

New Game -> Custom ->  where it says "Rating: .. " choose any option (STD, SOLO) except 'Casual'

For variant games with a custom starting position, only the listed positions can be played rated.

I am usually a little angry about games which are aborted at the beginning. So I repeat an old proposal: Not only penalty minus points for the aborter but also a plus point for the other three players.

What is the formula for rating deviation? My variant ratings have acquired a "?" recently as they have risen.

@chadkatter the ? just means that deviation is > 100. deviation goes up if you have very little opposition with a similar rating to your own. I've added for next update that the ? will only show for ratings with very few games played.

@spacbar: I like the idea of going back to +4 -1 -1 -2 again. I wasn’t really sure why we changed it honestly. It will put an incentive for a harder fight, and it just seems to make sense that last place should lose more than everyone else.

Grathieben wrote:

@spacbar: I like the idea of going back to +4 -1 -1 -2 again. I wasn’t really sure why we changed it honestly. It will put an incentive for a harder fight, and it just seems to make sense that last place should lose more than everyone else.

I was the one suggesting the change, and I can explain why. I never really explained the reasoning behind back then, so I'm glad you point it out. Simplified version: having 2nd = 3rd makes the 3 player stage WTA, and 3rd=4th makes the 4 player stage WTA.

You can't really think of it like "it makes sense that 4th loses more than the others", that's the reasoning behind +3 +1 -1 -3 (FFA), and as we've seen, that's a permanent team game. You have to think about the way the point distribution affects the players' decisions during gameplay

+3 -1 -1 -1 removes all incentive to kill off a player just to avoid last place. Instead you're fighting for yourself to win, for getting the most points. From move 1. And that should be the Solo mechanism. All these things are better illustrated with concrete situations, I can make some examples if you want.

Idk what just happend, at the end of the game, I was playing vs the red guy, I then something happend and said ¨Red team autoclaim" and I lose that game, what is that? what's autocliam? How do I do that?

Solo should be +6 -1 -2 -3 instead of +6 -2 -2 -2 (same as +4 -1.3 -1.3 -1.3) or the player that thinks that he had no chance of being 1st place just resigns. My suggestion is making solo like Winner takes Most which somehow disappeared recently.

not sure whether this is the right place to ask. Could we have separate ratings for solo blitz and solo rapid? The slow games are for serious people and blitz is a matter of quick fun.

In solo, being 4th is as bad as being 2nd

Also, everyone is tied the same number of points of 20, all of the players are 1500 with glicko RD of 120, what happens to the rating in such a case? I know it is next to impossible, but I am curious.

I've read that; and I still do not understand how exactly the rating system works in Teams.

For example, here, why does the 1st guy obtain MUCH more than me whereas we were in the same team? 38.4 for him, only 12 for me...

nguyenvietdung234
(1500)
+38.4
Indipendenza
(1479)
+12
heenacoral5
(1536)
-35.9
Jeeworth
(1500)
-39.2