14 Jun '21 00:50>
I don't pay much attention to the personal ratings but I would like somebody to explain to me what's the importance of a high score? This is probably a dumb question but I don't know where else to look to answer this. Thanks!
@dustin saidThe ratings are a way to assess the strength of a player. About 400 rating points difference mean (in principle) that higher player wins each game.
I don't pay much attention to the personal ratings but I would like somebody to explain to me what's the importance of a high score? This is probably a dumb question but I don't know where else to look to answer this. Thanks!
@ogb saidThere is one.
It's been a mystery to me why someone hasn't put up a website that has no ratings.
@ponderable saidThe chess rating systems I'm familiar with are designed so that the winner would gain rating points even against a much lower-rated opponent. For example, a player who was at least 350 points higher rated might need to win seven games for every draw (with no losses) in order to break even.
The ratings are a way to assess the strength of a player. About 400 rating points difference mean (in principle) that higher player wins each game.
@ogb saidYou may enjoy checking out ItsYourTurn, a nice turn-based, browser-based site that has various forms of chess and other abstract games.
It's been a mystery to me why someone hasn't put up a website that has no ratings.
@fmdavidhlevin saidWithout knowing it, I've played rated games where I had no chance to gain any points.
The chess rating systems I'm familiar with are designed so that the winner would gain rating points even against a much lower-rated opponent.
@ogb saidOuch. It would seem fairer to credit the much higher-rated winner with a fraction of a point, even if the gain wouldn't be reflected in the player's rating until sufficient fractional gains had been accumulated.
Without knowing it, I've played rated games where I had no chance to gain any points.
Only lose points with a draw or loss. LOL .
@fmdavidhlevin saidI think your suggestion runs the risk of over complicating the rating system here.
Ouch. It would seem fairer to credit the much higher-rated winner with a fraction of a point, even if the gain wouldn't be reflected in the player's rating until sufficient fractional gains had been accumulated.
@fmdavidhlevin saidOr the higher-rated player could stick to players more his or her own size...
Ouch. It would seem fairer to credit the much higher-rated winner with a fraction of a point, even if the gain wouldn't be reflected in the player's rating until sufficient fractional gains had been accumulated.
@bigdoggproblem saidTrue. Ideally, I would prefer a rating system that does not make it more difficult (at least in the abstract) for a player who likes playing way "up" to find willing opponents (such as by removing the possibility of rating gain for the higher-rated player). But I'd agree that in reality, whether a rating system has this property is unlikely to matter to more than a handful of people (if that).
Or the higher-rated player could stick to players more his or her own size...
@venda saidI gave up Clan playing because I lost all confidence in the TER being an honest indication of the ability of a clan player. Players shedding points in non-clan games to lower their rating.
I think your suggestion runs the risk of over complicating the rating system here.
I don't take much notice of it personally but it is a handy tool as a guide for clan leaders setting up challenges, even though it can, and is ,manipulated by some players.
I play on here mainly for r &r so the ratings are just a bit of extra interest.