When a person is playing 30 games at once, do you think that they are going to play the game that they are losing or winning more often. The winning one. People see the moves in the losing game as obligatory, but see the ones in the winning game as fun.
Also what if their rating goes up. The rating is their to accurately show their skill level. If their skill level has changed, it should be reflected as in in the rating.
Also what if their rating goes up. The rating is their to accurately show their skill level. If their skill level has changed, it should be reflected as in in the rating.
Yeah, what he said. Your rating reflects your current playing strength. If his rating was higher when you started and has since gone down, then he was overrated in the first place. Calculating the rating adjustment based on the most recent rating reflects this fact.
carpman> Enjoy the game and play to your ability and your proper rating will follow.
Oh, and what he said too.
I initially thought the same thing, but then the reason for why it is, the way it is, occurred to me.
When a player first signs up, they have a rating of 1200. If the player's "true" strength is 1600, he/she should be able to beat "true" 1200 players regularly. By winning your first match against another 1200 player, you would gain maybe 150 points. If the new player started 20 games at once against 1200 players, and posts (hypothetically) a 20-0 record, they suddenly have a rating of .... 4200. But, of course, this is impossible.
So, the ratings MUST be adjusted by the END of the game ratings. It reflects a more accurate picture of the skills involved, which makes sense, as it incorporates the most up to date information.
well it should be the same the other way, peoples ratings go up as you play them too.
but i noticed too that some people seem to use the timeframe to increase their rating or reduce the damage. some opponents of mine seemed to stall the lost game because they knew my rating would go up a lot (so they would lose less points).
but i think stalling is only really annoying when the game is very tense/thrilling, but in that case you can't blame the opponent for thinking twice about a move
Okay, so sometimes I'm playing guys with much higher ratings than mine at the start of the game. In some cases, I get them into trouble, and then the stall tactics begin. Granted, you need to think hard about your next move when you're in trouble, but players go from an average of 5-6 moves a day against me, to 1 move a day when they're in trouble...
That being said, it doesn't seem fair to me when a player begins to stall, and their rating is slipping as our game continues, to the point where when they finally resign or get checkmated, our ratings are no longer that far apart, and I earn very few points.
Would it not be more equal in terms of ratings, to award points or deduct points from players based on their ratings at the beginning of each match? The software could simply register both players ratings at the beginning of the match for its final calculation.
If I could have some opinions please (especially from the guys who run this site!!!)