|
|
|
Topic: Should Miguel change the rating system?
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
I understand you, friend. But I like to think by this way:
Let's suppose that I have 2800 points. We saw, in the last post, that my penalty by a lost game against a weak player can be 15 times higher than the winning points (15 points lost to John, and 1 winning point).
Well, in 100 games against weaker players (less than 1600 points), if I win 93 games and lose only 7 matches, I'll have: + 93 points - 105 points = -12 points in my rating.
I think that it's annoying to a good player plays many games against weaker players, and the reward doesn't worth. We can see that it's too risk for his rating and a few losses can reduce it (7% of losses against intermediate players - like ratings 1600 - can reduce in 12 points his rating).
|
|
|
It's risky for a good player to play many games against lower ratings, in a global calculation.
Greetings! 
|
|
|
I agree with Clivebeard that if you beat someone whose rating is 400 points or more below yours you should get no points, even if you risk a major loss. If all I ever do is challenge people with ratings of 800 and below, yes, my rating will never go up, and with the occasional loss, my rating will eventually slip down to 1200. But that would be appropriate. If you want to have a high rating then you need to beat people with a high rating. I suspect that the USCF rules were conceived of in the context of tournaments, where players don't choose their opponents.
|
|
|
Yes, If ELO only works if the assumptions of ELO rating are followed. One of these assumptions are that games are between randomly selected members of the population (* actually I should be more precise here). When people get to select their opponents an assumption of the ELO rating system is not met, so the ratings do not have the meaning that is ascribed to them.
|
|
|
| We can suggest many things but never changes because the site is poorly managed |
Thanks.
|
| Previous 1 2 3 4 Next |
|
|
|
