Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28
  1. #1
    CC FIDE Master bobby1972's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    576
    Barry,i drew with some one 1313 (and i was very lucky i posted the position under the dandy summer swiss )and lost 13.5 poins ,now if i had won i would have gained .4 points.does this mean that i have to beat him 33.75 times to recuperate my lost points.i personaly like this rating system ,but this seems odd,does this mean that no matter how many high rated players you beat if you draw or loose against lower rated players you may as well not play.

  2. #2
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,325
    Yes, it does. The easiest way to get points is to stop playing. In a few years Bill will upgrade everyone's rating including players who did not play.

    Then the relevant question will be "why do you care about rating if you do not play?")

    P.S. This is why I think upgrades should be proportional to the number of games played by each player.

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,672
    Quote Originally Posted by bobby1972
    Barry,i drew with some one 1313 (and i was very lucky i posted the position under the dandy summer swiss )and lost 13.5 poins ,now if i had won i would have gained .4 points.does this mean that i have to beat him 33.75 times to recuperate my lost points.i personaly like this rating system ,but this seems odd,does this mean that no matter how many high rated players you beat if you draw or loose against lower rated players you may as well not play.
    It's a misconception. If you lose to a player rated X points below you, and beat a player rated X points above you, your net rating change should be zero.

  4. #4
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,672
    Quote Originally Posted by drug
    Yes, it does. The easiest way to get points is to stop playing. In a few years Bill will upgrade everyone's rating including players who did not play.
    Actually this isn't correct. Bill retrospectively removed 'upgrade' points from players who were inactive over a long period.

  5. #5
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    It's a misconception. If you lose to a player rated X points below you, and beat a player rated X points above you, your net rating change should be zero.
    ...all other things being equal. It would depend a great deal on the RD values as well as the ratings of those involved.

    The other loss of symmetry is that while 2000 players occasionally draw or lose to players 700 points below them they don't often get the chance to play players rated 700 point higher.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  6. #6
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    ...all other things being equal. It would depend a great deal on the RD values as well as the ratings of those involved.

    The other loss of symmetry is that while 2000 players occasionally draw or lose to players 700 points below them they don't often get the chance to play players rated 700 point higher.
    Another loss of symmetry arises when you play in a swiss and say you are close to the top. Whenever you play with somebody who is 400+ below you (after the first rounds), you are playing with a player who is performing much better than his rating, which means he is underrated. The same is true for players who close to the bottom. They only play 2000 player when he/she has a bad tournamnet or when he is overrated. This is a well known phenomenon in the professional chess. Players playing in swiss tournaments are pretty much bounded by 2650 because of that. If they had a chance to play in Linares they would be 2700.

  7. #7
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,325
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Actually this isn't correct. Bill retrospectively removed 'upgrade' points from players who were inactive over a long period.
    This amendment makes the system funny. If the rule is that the points are taken away only when you haven't played for a long period of time, you strategy is to play one game a year with a player 1000 below your rating and collect the points.

    This rule reminds me the australian tax system, which is probably the most complicated tax system in the world. Instead of completely rewriting the rules the government makes amendments here and there (sometimes retrospectively) that make the rules more nad more complicated.

  8. #8
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,672
    Quote Originally Posted by drug
    Players playing in swiss tournaments are pretty much bounded by 2650 because of that. If they had a chance to play in Linares they would be 2700.
    Most of the top successful 'Open Swiss' players would be mercilessly crushed if they played Linares.

  9. #9
    CC FIDE Master bobby1972's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    576
    thanks very much for all the info everyone

  10. #10
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,325
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Most of the top successful 'Open Swiss' players would be mercilessly crushed if they played Linares.
    Sorry mate, but this is not what observed. Just take example of Levon Aronyan or Ruslan Ponomarev or Khalifman, etc. All these players got points from their first Linares.

  11. #11
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by bobby1972
    Barry,i drew with some one 1313 (and i was very lucky i posted the position under the dandy summer swiss )and lost 13.5 poins ,now if i had won i would have gained .4 points.does this mean that i have to beat him 33.75 times to recuperate my lost points.i personaly like this rating system ,but this seems odd,does this mean that no matter how many high rated players you beat if you draw or loose against lower rated players you may as well not play.
    Actually you would need to beat the 1313 rated player 32 times.
    However under Elo its worse. Based on a K factor of 15 and using the normal distribution the loss costs you 7.435 but each win only gains you 0.646. Therefore you would need to win 115 times.
    If the logistic distribution is used each loss costs you 7.295 but each win gains you 0.205 and you would therefore need to win 36 times.

    So Glicko is better for you.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  12. #12
    Banned Hydra
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    105

    Thumbs down Glicko

    However the rating of a player could be markedly different from elo given the same results. Who was the bight spark who foisted this system on the chess playing community in Australia? Just curious, I have my suspicions but I just want to see if I am right.

  13. #13
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomas Kessler
    However the rating of a player could be markedly different from elo given the same results.
    Yes but its the difference in ratings that is important not the absolute value. The difference between Bobby1972 and his 1300 odd opponent is likely to be pretty much the same.
    Also in the majority of cases under Elo juniors would be much lower rated compared to adults than they are under Glicko.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  14. #14
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    853
    [QUOTE=bobby1972]does this mean that i have to beat him 33.75 times to recuperate my lost points.iQUOTE]

    You wont beat he 33.75 more time bobby. Sorry about disapointing you

  15. #15
    CC FIDE Master bobby1972's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    576
    Its Ok I Just Beat A Few 2200 + And The Damage Is Fixed,

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Charles Robert Darwin 1809-1882
    By antichrist in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 150
    Last Post: 04-09-2013, 02:18 PM
  2. David's debating abilities, etc.
    By Rhubarb in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 17-07-2006, 04:45 PM
  3. Rules of thread splitting- basic rights
    By firegoat7 in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 166
    Last Post: 23-02-2005, 08:37 AM
  4. Kevin's rating question - extended
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 26-09-2004, 11:35 PM
  5. What are ratings for?
    By PHAT in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 124
    Last Post: 10-09-2004, 11:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •