Back to forum
Nicola Lupinacci (2007-04-27)
I have a question...
I have now 1410 Elo points and at next elo refresh (1st May) I probably raise at 1576 Elo points.
Now there is a problem: I arrive at 1576 becouse I have won 5 game where after 15-20 moves my opponent's clock silently finish without any other moves and in 3 or 4 of this games my opponent was in a really good position.
The question is:
Is possible do not to calculate elo variation of this particular games?
I think it is a good idea to make an option that when I win a game by time, I can choose if this game will be calculate or not calculate in my elo variation...
I suggest this becouse I gain elo points from losing games and it is not fun :(
Sorry for my bad english... :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-27 03:09:26)
Elo calculation must be a clear and fair algorith as much as possible... These rules are statistically quite good IMO (and I suppose not many players will ask for less points ;)) because rating is quite dynamic (if your rating is really too high, you'll most probably quickly lose points until the next update) then most forfeits are done before the 10 first moves. In a way, you deserved these points because you played moves enough in these games, otherwise ie. what would happen if a player forfeits after 40 moves in a drawn or lost position ? .. Is the game unrated, rated as a win, a draw ? .. It would be unrated in some other places, that's not fair IMO. There are more complex cases. One thing most important is to make rating calculation 100% automatic (no human decision is a very asked 'feature'), this way there can't be any complaint about ratings as the future rating option makes it clear.
Matt Lasley (2007-04-27 15:24:15)
You could say that the forfeiture points are awarded for consistency. That's a valuable trait. Perhaps such points may not reflect play yet, but the consistency that lead to their award will show up in your game play in the long run. So, the points are deserved either way. And as T said, the algorithm takes care of it anyway. Ratings are a measure of history, not a measure of skill.
Nicola Lupinacci (2007-04-27 21:30:34)
Yes, I agree whit you Matt when you said "Ratings are a measure of history, not a measure of skill", IMO elo is only a statistic of our results...
Chess skill is more complex and it can't been explained only whit a number...
[Chess forum] [Rating lists] [Countries] [Chess openings] [Legal informations] [Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]