19 Feb 07
Originally posted by adramforallUsing rating points at the start of a game is a disaster. Say somebody strong did T/O lots of games down to a 1000 rating. He then started 100 games at that rating. Suddenly, there are very little limits to how high he can go. 100 x 32 = 3200, yay he's rated 4200, having only ever beaten 1500 rated players.
Edit - I think that the ratings at the start of the game should be those used to dictate won points. This I think would stop the large ratings drops - someone dropping from 1800 to 1100 would find it more difficult to get games with 1700+ rated players as they would be losing too many points for a loss. That way they would need to slowly rise back thou ...[text shortened]... only gaining in a few points for their "easy wins" on the way back up to their genuine rating.
Think about these things a little guys.
D
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by RagnorakUse the same system that is used for tournament entry, Maybe you could use your own advice.
Using rating points at the start of a game is a disaster. Say somebody strong did T/O lots of games down to a 1000 rating. He then started 100 games at that rating. Suddenly, there are very little limits to how high he can go. 100 x 32 = 3200, yay he's rated 4200, having only ever beaten 1500 rated players.
Think about these things a little guys.
D
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundThe tournament entry system makes no sense as a way of calculating your actual rating if that is what you are proposing. We really need to just leave it alone. A few rating points lost to people who lose on timeouts too often really isn't a big deal, certainly not worthy of trying to come up with a new rating system. RHP calculates ratings the same as nearly all chess federations and whatnot do, it is the best way to calculate them IMO, partly for consistancy with real life and other sites, and partly because it is a good algorithm.
Use the same system that is used for tournament entry, Maybe you could use your own advice.