|
|
|
Topic: Should Miguel change the rating system?
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
kingdave and whyBish
It makes sense these ideas. I agree with you too.
But I only tried to explain and show that the rule isn't so bad and it's almost impossible to have "good" players (rating > 2200) that played always against weak players and, then, accumulate their points.
And, yes, I agree that rating differences above 400 points shouldn't give points to the strongest player (if he beat the weakest).
Greetings! 
|
|
|
According to Prof. Elo himself, ratings measure performance, not ability. Of course the best players usually have the best results, but in a scenario where a high rated player plays and defeats only low rated players, the system is measuring exactly what it was designed to do…measuring results.
I doubt there is a system that will measure ability and all systems can be manipulated so personally I wouldn’t bother trying to tweak it. Internet ratings don’t mean anything on any site anyway.
BTW, after spending several years playing on a site that cost $40 per year, I decided to play only on Queen Alice. Other sites may have a few minor “perks” for members, but if all you want to do is play chess, this site is the best and is the only one I recommend. Personally, I haven’t found anything that needs improved.
|
|
|
I think that any player sholdent have 3400 of elo for playing with low rated players like the ingles man
you just have to make a limite for win points off ranking
Acho que nenhum jogador deveria de conseguir ter 3400 de elo so jogando com jogadores com baixo elo (duvido da força do mesmo) para se ganhar pontos a partir de um certo nivel deveriamos como nesse caso acho que se deveria ter no minimo nunca menos de 300 pontos de elo ouassim e um melhor controlo para os batoteiros acho que isso bastava para regular melhor os rankings de elo
|
|
|
| According to Prof. Elo himself, ratings measure performance, not ability. |
Even if you tweak this, the important thing is that it only does this within the population you are playing against. (i.e. if I always only play against my friend that I always beat and he always only plays against me, then I would be 3000 he would be 400, because that would be the population of two that we were playing in.). THere are some speed chess sites that perform a tandom assignment of opponents, but I'm not sure it could be done for turn based. I was thinking that just counting ratings for open tournaments would work, but that still has selection bias (e.g. the 20th player joining knows the ratings/players of the first 19)
|
|
|
In a game of 'beach cricket' there is no umpire to call 'dead ball' if the ball is lost. It might not be cheating to just keep on running up and down the pitch, but it isn't in the spirit of the game, and it doesn't make you Bradman!
|
| Previous 1 2 3 4 Next |
|
|
|
