|
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
Surely the 400 rating point difference applies to those with ratings to begin with. Since my opponent was unrated, we cannot say there was any meaningful difference to take into account. I understood that the first game between two unrated players only must result in scores of 1100, 1300 or 1500.
To repeat what I posted earlier in this thread, the Web page you refer to on this gives:
Example 2:
John Doe, a previously unrated player, beats a 1200 rated player. This game gives him a first rating of 1200 + 400, or 1600.
|
|
|
Unrated players are considered to have a rating of 0.
|
|
|
If that were true then their rating would remain at zero if they played anyone rated 400 or above, since the Special Rule would apply.
So how do you explain the example given above?
|
|
|
Again, what is there to explain? I'm telling how it is and you keep disputing it. You keep referring to the USCF site, but this isn't USCF, the rating computations here are based on those at USCF but they are not identical.
The system is meant to prevent rating inflation, and as far as I'm concerned works fine. What is your problem with it?
|
|
|
If the calculations used on Queen Alice are indeed as you intend them to be, then that part is fair enough. All I would suggest is that the information given on our help page is modified to reflect this system's computations, since as it stands members will be under the impression that there is a contradiction between what is written - effectively backed up by the US correspondence chess ratings link - and how the system here actually works.
I believe what we interpret from the Provisional Ratings help section for Queen Alice is this:
If BOTH players are unrated, then the winner gets 1500 points and the loser 1100. If the game ended in a draw then both players get 1300 points.
OTHERWISE:
Where an unrated player beats a rated opponent, then the rating for the winner is the opponent's rating plus 400 points...and so on.
Where a rated player beats an unrated opponent, then the rating for the winner is 1500 points...and so on.
The creator of this thread was confused about her first result simply because she understood (correctly) the above interpretation regarding new, unrated players. Apart from myself, there are bound to be many others who were of the same understanding.
And that's all this was about. It wasn't about challenging methods, but rather about providing members with information that accurately describes the methods themselves. Yes, ratings inflation is a problem and perhaps the removal of "protected ratings" might be a surer, more long-term measure to help prevent it.
|
| Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next |
|
|
|
