CAN I GET MY ELO REFUNDED?

I went to eat lunch at school and one of my friend(ig) played two games and got absolutely cooked. It wasnt played by me… Can i get my elo refunded…?

Rather pray they dont close your account for letting other people use it

Why aren't you happy they lost two games for you?

Beg Chess.com to not ban you first

Elo can be gained, Just take the loss, Your skill doesn't go down with elo.

You didn’t lose any Elo rating points, only Chess.com rating points, so there is no Elo to “refund”.

Chess.com ratings aren’t Elo ratings.

then why does Gothamchess call the series of guessing the chess.com rating “guess the elo?”

Why should I care about GothamChess not understanding the difference between Elo ratings (managed by FIDE) and chess.com ratings?

If you don’t understand the difference, read Chess rating systems, which explains what Elo, Glicko-1 (used on Chess.com and FICS) and Glicko-2 (used on Lichess and ICC) are.

If you read up on the “Elo rating system”, you will learn that a mathematician named Arpad Elo came up with the system in the 60’s. His system was adopted by the United States Chess Federation in 1960 and by FIDE, the international chess federation in 1970.

Since that time, there have been some enhancements of the system developed, including the one used by Chess.com (Glicko1) and the one used by Lichess (Glicko 2). Many other sports have adopted similar Elo-type systems.

However, most chess players understand the usage "Elo rating” and refer to the other systems as Elo ratings. I don’t think that most players have any problem with Gotham using the term to refer to non-FIDE ratings.

You could call Glicko Elo informally, But it's not going to look good in a professional paper (as if anyone even writes things with Glicko anyways).

The drama becomes documentary

Hmm. Mark Glickman is a Senior Lecturer on statistics at Harvard. https://www.glicko.net/

He is still writing peer-reviewed papers about ratings systems.

Rating Competitors in Games with Strength-Dependent Tie Probabilities

Abstract

Competitor rating systems for head-to-head games are typically used to measure playing strength from game outcomes. Ratings computed from these systems are often used to select top competitors for elite events, for pairing players of similar strength in online gaming, and for players to track their own strength over time. Most implemented rating systems assume only win/loss outcomes, and treat occurrences of ties as the equivalent to half a win and half a loss. However, in games such as chess, the probability of a tie (draw) is demonstrably higher for stronger players than for weaker players, so that rating systems ignoring this aspect of game results may produce strength estimates that are unreliable. We develop a new rating system for head-to-head games based on a model that explicitly acknowledges that a tie may depend on the strengths of the competitors. The approach uses a Bayesian dynamic modeling framework. Within each time period, posterior updates are computed in closed form using a single Newton-Raphson iteration evaluated at the prior mean. The approach is demonstrated on a large dataset of chess games played in International Correspondence Chess Federation tournaments.

The rules explicitly say that you shouldn’t let anyone use your account except yourself.

It’s your responsibility.

You don’t get a rating "refund" for that.

You might even get banned for letting someone else use your account.

Next time, log out or change the password.

See also:

Models and Rating Systems for Head-to-Head Competition

ABSTRACT

One of the most important tasks in sports analytics is the development of binary response models for head-to-head game outcomes to estimate team and player strength. We discuss commonly used probability models for game outcomes, including the Bradley–Terry and Thurstone–Mosteller models, as well as extensions to ties as a third outcome and to the inclusion of a home-field advantage. We consider dynamic extensions to these models to account for the evolution of competitor strengths over time. Full likelihood-based analyses of these time-varying models can be simplified into rating systems, such as the Elo and Glicko rating systems. We present other modern rating systems, including popular methods for online gaming, and novel systems that have been implemented for online chess and Go. The discussion of the analytic methods are accompanied by examples of where these approaches have been implemented for various gaming organizations, as well as a detailed application to National Basketball Association game outcomes.

checkmate

Anyway, the original question was whether the OP could get their rating points refunded after allowing other people to use their account.

As someone already pointed out, that was a violation of Chess.com’s failr play rules, which state,

“To play on our website, all players must agree to: (…)

• Do not allow anyone else to use your account.

• (…)”