i know that erik, but what i am saying is that instead of this complicated rating system (seeing that it's accuracy is being questioned) why not just use the ranking system only!!!
Chess rating system
inferno, how would you determine everybody's ranking? How do you determine how to change a player's ranking when they win or lose? (don't just say it goes up if you win and down if you lose, the programmers need a precise calculation for it.)
Just because a few people who don't understand the rating system question it's accuracy, we shouldn't scrap a system that is both well founded in math and statistics and tried and true (the glicko rating system is used in other places with much success).
Also, my rating today can be compared to my rating next year. My ranking today might have nothing to do with my ranking a year from now.
i would say ranking is used to show your position in relation to other players and ratings to calculate your skill level!! hope that answers your question paul. oh and for your information " I AM MERELY ASKING QUESTIONS BECAUSE I WANTED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE RATING SYSTEM AND HOW IT WORKS, because i saw the way ratings is caculated and it was confusing yet interesting at the same time!
In that case inferno, excuse me for answering your question!!!
And in all sincerity, the next time you ask a question, end it with a question mark instead of three exclamation points and perhaps people will understand better that you are asking a question and not making a suggestion that borders on a demand.
i didn't have time to read the posts but i just wanted to know if it wouldn't be better if we ranked instead of rated. this way you will know that on chess.com you are ranked number 1234 (eg.) and not rated 1187 (eg.). what do you think?
well gentlemen i sincerely apologise if it sounded that way, but I think my first post ended with a question mark!
i would say ranking is used to show your position in relation to other players and ratings to calculate your skill level!! hope that answers your question paul. oh and for your information " I AM MERELY ASKING QUESTIONS BECAUSE I WANTED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE RATING SYSTEM AND HOW IT WORKS, because i saw the way ratings is caculated and it was confusing yet interesting at the same time!
Inferno - thanks - I have only played 9 games on line so far - and have no ranking - is it safe to assume I will get a ranking after I have played more games?
new question (to anybody listening):
when i accept a challenge from somebody, under "game details" it tells me what the game will be worth to my rating. for example:
win: +156 lose: -83 draw: +17
i assume these numbers are derived from my and my opponents' relative strength, as measured by the score we have at the commencement of the game. my question, then, is this: suppose it takes us seven days to play the game. and suppose further that during those seven days, i complete ten other games that were pending at the commencement of the new game. and suppose even further (this will really be a stretch) that i won all ten of those other games.
so my rating goes up. shouldn't that affect that the win/lose/draw numbers for the game i finish after the other ten?
are you sure about this cause i didnt notice that at all
i didn't have time to read the posts but i just wanted to know if it wouldn't be better if we ranked instead of rated. this way you will know that on chess.com you are ranked number 1234 (eg.) and not rated 1187 (eg.). what do you think?
i think we already have taht too :)