effect of claiming a draw on rating

Hi every one.

In online chess, on 2 occasions I claimed a draw because of 3 repetitions and I was very much surprised when my rating immediately fell by 26 points each time!

Is that the norm? Would it matter if I wait for my opponent to offer or claim a draw?

What is the difference between offering and claiming and does it really matter?

Thanks

A draw is a draw, there is no difference between how it is achieved. You have lost that many points because your rating was 1935 and your opponent was I don't know exactly but below 1400. (Right now he has 1396)
Of course you lose a lot of points if you draw against an opponent rated that much lower than you. 

Thanks csalami for your prompt reply.

How much do you think my rate would have fallen if I had lost to the same opponent? 

The fall or rise in your rating depends on the rating level of your opponent. Same rating as you .....draw = no change.

In Elo if a draw cost you 20 points a loss costs twice as much, 40 (IIRC).  Chess.com uses Glicko though, but that's probably a reasonable estimate.

@ mashanator
I glanced at the formula when I typed my answer.  Now that I look again I see I was wrong.  But if how well you typed your reply reflects how well you understand it, then you're still unclear lol.

You just seemed to try to make it more complicated than it actually is.  For example the formula doesn't "factor in . . . rating performances."  Although yes, it can calculate them.  And yes, it's a measure that only has meaning after many games, but it is calculated game by game, so I'm not sure what you were trying to say when you said it's a tournament measure.

By the way, wasn't trying to criticize your intellect.  You seem to know what you're talking about (and didn't make a big mistake like I did).  I was criticizing the way you wrote it.  I see you added "without starting an english debate."  Well I'm sorry then, we don't have to go in circles.  I honestly believe you know what you're saying here.

You apologize for being too smart for me?

Rhetorical questions are fun?

I think?

Nice save with the exceptional case though.  I guess it turns out you were almost right.

Well at least we both definitely agree this is a ridiculously poor example of people trying to sound smart... I mean... I don't think either of us were trying, I guess you only bring it up as an insult though... ok I'm tried, sorry for talking it all out.

If you are taking this seriously though, feel free to let me know what you had in mind for the "tournament measure" bit.

Hey, you're the one bringing up intelligence every post.  I figure you're just projecting, so that's why I included you (by saying "people").

To answer your question, exceptional as in unusual.  The formula proper doesn't have any term for anyone's performance rating.  That just happens to be how they handle unrated players in those relatively rare cases.

I said relatively rare.

You're probably right that you didn't use it every post, I'm not going to check.  It just seemed that way to me at the time I typed it.

Either you're taking this seriously or you're trolling me, either way I think I'm done.  Thanks for helping me pass the time though :)

All you have to do is click on detaIS on your online game  and you will see how many points your rating moves.

Yes, the number of games also matters in glecko, mashanator is right.
But your rating doesn't change against an unrated player in ELO,(FIDE doesn't even show those matches when calculating the monthly rating change) I don't know if it changes in glecko. 

Dear all

Many thanks for sharing your thoughts about my little question.

If I understood correctly, and without using formulae, then the best way to find out the probable effect of a loss, a win or a draw on my rating is to play more games with differently rated opponents as one of the respondents suggested.

Perhaps I would come back to this post after a few hundred games!