Back to forum
Robert Mueller (2012-07-28)
Number 1 in the established rating list (Rene-Reiner Starke) has (a) never played a single game on FICGS, (b) is not currently playing any games at FICGS and (c) has not even logged on since 2010. Why is he the number 1?
Thibault de Vassal (2012-07-28 11:34:00)
Hello Robert, yes this has always worked like this (also to attract new players), that's why there's also an active players list.
Anyway there were other discussions on this issue and solutions envisaged, I'll come back to it soon...
Don Groves (2012-08-02 06:11:16)
My feeling is that a player should not be in any FICGS rating list until they have completed at least one game at FICGS.
Scott Nichols (2012-08-02 17:25:14)
I agree with Don 100%
Thibault de Vassal (2012-08-03 16:26:08)
Well, a bit further a player should not start with a 2400 rating, wherever he's coming from. I think it is interesting for many to know who registered at FICGS. The "complete" correspondence chess rating list is the only one where one can see all registered players, most inactive players just disappear of the active players list after a few weeks, is it a real problem!?
Anyway I understand the point but I fear I cannot do anything before a while, whatever the final decision :/
Scott Nichols (2012-08-03 18:47:53)
Not a problem, just check the active list, easy...
Don Groves (2012-08-04 04:58:39)
As Robert pointed out, the Established rating list is meaningless as it now stands.
Only the Active lists are accurate. This seems to be a strange situation. But, yes, not an immediate problem.
[Chess forum] [Rating lists] [Countries] [Chess openings] [Legal informations] [Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]