Check out Glinski's Hexagonal Chess, our featured variant for May, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Single Comment

Game Courier Ratings. Calculates ratings for players from Game Courier logs. Experimental.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Gary Gifford wrote on Wed, Jan 11, 2006 06:37 PM EST:
Good questions.  I'll deffer them to Fergus as he understands what is
going on here far better than I do and I could end up giving a wrong
answer.  But I do know a player who was about 2000.  Unfortunately he has
a mental condition, he is now about 1400 and getting weeker in all
cognitive areas.  It is now a strain for him just to walk. 
Understandably, he could have quit playing chess while at 2000... but he
still plays.  Anyway, if he quit at 2000 his frozen 2000 rating would
certainly be false.  Of course, if he quit and his rating climbed, that
too would be false.  It would need to drop over time to reflect reality. 
Would this happen with the equations Fergus is using?  I don't know... 
We can shoot all kinds of rating situations around and argue one way or
the other, but what is the point?  Does it really matter?

Why should we get so wrapped up in these values?  They are just a means of
comparison.  Before we had nothing.  Now we will have something.  If we do
not like that 'something' then we can choose the 'unrated game' option
once implemented.  We can also play in USCF tournaments where our ratings
will freeze once we quit playing.