times of games and ratings
Sort:
well, i think a way to rate someones game as good or bad will be only by having super computers nearly cracking the game waching you in every move, i think that any loss should bring your rating down and any win will raise your rating, ike the current system.
For the world championship, I believe the time controls are: both sides have 2 hours to make their first 40 moves. At that point, 1 hour is added to both players' clock. After move 70, an extra half-hour is added to both players' clock (and no more time is added after that).
Your rating is meant to be a measure of your statistically expected winning percentage vs another player, given your rating and his, in the long run. For example, if a player is rated 200 points higher than you, you are expected to win 24% of your games against that person. Chess isn't like figure skating or synchronized diving - you don't get points for style 
.
This is feasible in an alternate rating system where you play several games against the computer and it rates how well you respond for each individual move... i.e., whether you tend to make the decision that maximizes your evaluation function at every step of the game, and in how many you fail to make the maximal decision or something very close to it (according to the computer).
It is not feasible in a rating measuring your wins/losses/draws against human opponents. The reason being it would change the object of the game. Currently, there are no points for "holding out" 20 or 70 moves before losing, or for losing because the opponent had just one more pawn than you and could promote it. Changing how these types of games affect point distribution would immediately change the object of the game.
By the by, it often seems like we lose on move 20+ when actually we sowed our seeds on move 10. It just took that long for our opponent clearly to prove the error and his advantage, which accumulated into material loss or mate.
Two questions....
What is the official time for moves for the world championship how does it work?
Many...(many years ago ) I Played John Collins in Chess..(supposed mentor of Fisher) held my own for twenty moves then..Lost. My point why can't a rating also take into consideration the way one plays (against higher ranked players) even in defeat.... I think the quality of ones game should be taken into consideration even in defeat. Your thoughts?