Ratings

Originally posted by David Tebb:

I have a couple of suggestions for improving the site:-

1. Everyone should start unrated. Ratings are only given after a
minimum number of games have been played (10 for example). This
works very well in the Elo system and would avoid strong players being
underrated for months.

2. Anyone who has an official rating or grade, such as Elo, BCF etc.
should be encouraged to declare it, both when they join and in their
profiles. This would enable everyone to have a better idea of the
strength of their opponent, especially those who are not
yet "established".

Originally posted by mattwyrick
Originally posted by David Tebb:

I have a couple of suggestions for improving the site:-

1. Everyone should start unrated. Ratings are only given after a
minimum number of games have been played (10 for example). This
works very well in the Elo system and would avoid strong players being
underrated for months.

2. Anyone who has an officia ...[text shortened]... er idea of the
strength of their opponent, especially those who are not
yet "established".

And?

Twenty games have to be played before one gets a non-provisional rating which seems not to have been the case when that was first posted - 4 years ago.

Also 5 games have to be played before your rating will change at all. Until then you are assumed to be p1200 for the purposes of your opponent's rating change.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Also 5 games have to be played before your rating will change at all. Until then you are assumed to be p1200 for the purposes of your opponent's rating change.

I think that his idea was to have some way to figure out how good a p1200 person is, so you don't end up playing a potential 2000 rated person.
edit - or playing like a potential 700 rated person -

*coughs* muppet