|
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
well...i play on a site that has tournaments banded at 200 points...i find it more fun to play chess with players who play at my level..the rating entry mark for tournaments is not set at your last 10 games ( so that one cannot manipulate the rating to get into a lower tourney ) but is rather a "tournament rating" ( over many past games ) which is a different rating than your rating of the week...it is about rccreation and have a nice time playing chess.. 
|
|
|
Why do you say the rating system here is terrible, GileCAR? Perhaps you're confused about what a rating means? 1800 is not an absolute measure of strength -- there's no reason that 1800 on this site has to be the same as 1800 on any other site, or with FIDE, the USCF or any other body that assigns ratings.
The significant thing about all Elo-like systems (such as the one used here) is not the absolute value of the ratings but, rather, the difference between the ratings of players. So, a rating difference of, say, 200 points means that the stronger player has the same chance of beating the weaker player (the stronger will score about 75%) regardless of the actual level of the ratings. So a 1600 will score about 75% against a 1400; a 2600 will score about 75% against a 2400; a 1,000,600 will score about 75% against a 1,000,400. And adding a million to everybody's rating would make no difference.
Now, I have a couple of issues with the rating system here -- in my opinion, the `k' factor is too high (so ratings jump about too much with each game) and there are too many protected ratings -- but they're not major.
|
|
|
I know that the ratings are relative strenght ... and I don't know what is 'k' factor. :)
What I meant is that above certain level rating difference doesn't have nothing to do with players performance (bellow that level players are terrible). So you can get situation where player with 200 points less than opponent has 75% chance of winning.:) Reason for this is people playing many games at the same time ... or not paying enough time on their games ... or what ever ...
The solution would be for ratings to change quickly in the beginning ... and the more you play rating changes more slowly ... more time you don't play, rating changes more quickly ... like on FICS with those rating diviations (I don't know the math behind it).
Conclusion: by opponent rating I can only put him in one of 3 categories
a) he has no clue what he's doing
b) he know something about what he's doing
c) he know to play chess
But I cannot even be sure in what category he really is ... I know just in witch he is most likely to be.
So, ratings here tell me ALMOST nothing.
|
|
|
| GileCAR wrote: and I don't know what is 'k' factor. :) |
When you win a game, your rating should go up; when you lose a game, it should go down. But by how much? Well, if you beat a stronger player, your rating should go up by more than if you beat a weaker player. But by how much? Well, that's the k-factor. Basically, a bigger k-factor means that your rating changes by a greater amount, for a given rating difference between the players.
The k-factor chosen here is based on USCF correspondence play, where it's assumed that players won't play too many games. Playing postal chess, the games last much longer so, if you're playing twenty games simultaneously, you're probably only finishing twenty games a year. Here, though, playing twenty games simultaneously, you'll likely finish well over a hundred a year. Because there's more data to base the games on, you don't need the ratings to move so quickly with each individual game.
| What I meant is that above certain level rating difference doesn't have nothing to do with players performance (bellow that level players are terrible). So you can get situation where player with 200 points less than opponent has 75% chance of winning.:) |
I see what you mean but I've not really experienced that. I will say, though, that for almost any rating, one is likely to believe that somebody rated 200 points below one `has no clue what he's doing', that somebody with roughly the same rating `knows something about what he's doing' and that somebody rated 200 points higher `knows how to play chess'. 
| Reason for this is people playing many games at the same time ... or not paying enough time on their games ... or what ever ... |
That doesn't actually make any difference. Ratings measure performance, rather than strength. So, the rating already factors in the fact that a player is playing too many simultaneous games too quickly and is, therefore, likely to make careless moves. Of course, you might be unlucky and find that your opponent doesn't happen to make any careless mistakes in your game but that can be the case in any situation.
|
|
|
i never said the "rating system here is terrible"...if you think i said that you are referring to another poster or you did not read my post for what it does actually say.
|
| Previous 1 2 3 4 Next |
|
|
|
