|
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
There is a separate rule ("protected ratings") that says that a player with an established rating can't lose rating points against a player whose rating is only provisional. This seems a reasonable idea, to me, since provisional ratings based on only a few games can be very approximate.
In theory, by the time a provisional rating becomes established (i.e., after 25 completed games), it should be reasonably accurate. However, on this site, the provisional ratings are often highly inaccurate. This is because of the incorrect rule that a provisionally-rated player can't score rating points against somebody rated more than 400 points higher than their current rating and also because the rating given after the first game appears to be arbitrary and extremely low.
This does lead to a problem when a newly-established player is under-rated by several hundred points since, because they are established, other established players start to lose large numbers of rating points by playing them, until their rating catches up.
For example, my opponent DNWheeler has completed 22 games. Under the USCF rating system, my calculation is that his rating would be 2024, which seems consistent with his record of +18-2=3 against players whose current ratings are mostly ing the 1500-2100 range. Instead, he has a rating of only 1422, which suggests that he should be losing most of his games against these opponents.
By the way, the problem of people getting very high ratings because you always gain at least one rating point for every win is easy to fix. Just say that, as a player with an established rating, you don't gain rating points from beating somebody rated more than, say, 500 points lower than you. That means that the highest-rated player on the site can't be more than 500 points ahead of everybody else.
|
|
|
Do note that Bergman has switched to unrated games only a while ago already.
|
|
|
Ok. So can we get rid of all the `anti-Bergman' features of the rating system that destroy its credibility?
|
|
|
No, the Bergman story is not over yet. Nor should it be necessarily.
I think many people really appreciate being able to play against him.
Ideally an incentive other than ratings would accomplish the same thing.
Your guess is as good as mine regarding Bergman's "Open Games" message. I'd say he will play from a different account soon.
Possibly creating a "Son of Bergman" character. 
|
|
|
I too noticed a problem after winning a game against a player ranked considerably higher than me.
http://www.queenalice.com/game.php?id=832979
Montelo was a 2135 before he resigned this game, and I was at a lowly 1218. So I was pretty excited to defeat a player with a ranking as high as his. However, neither of our rankings have changed.
I feel this is unfair and doesn't really encourage me to play on the site anymore. If the only place for me to go is down, what's the point of trying to win?
I'm new to the site, so I don't know a lot of the people or the system, but I would like to know if there is something in th way of a fix, or some mitigating circumstance that explains this.
Thanks
|
| Previous 1 2 3 Next |
|
|
|
