Something like

Rpost = (NRpre + mRavg + (W-L)400) / N+m
= (5x2031 + 2x1390 + 2x400) / 5+2
= (10155 + 2780 + 800) / 7
= 13735 / 7
= 1962

Apparently the system corrects for ratings going down when winning though.
You can't expect to gain anything playing against players rated 700 points lower than you.

Would it be an idea to have a board for questions of Czech-English translation?

pS I can understand no change if I had played many games, but only 7 so far, so thought there would be some change that was not really a sensible one like normal when only a few games played

someone work out a bkr change for me please.
I played 5 games and had 2031.
I win against unrated they go to 1300 I stay 2031
I win against 1480 they stay roughly the same I stay 2031. so now 7 games, but not changed, surely these last two should have changed me by 1 or 3 or something small.

yes, and not only that i'm about to lose a game against an unrated but obviously good player. I may be hitting that floor soon! (see formula page if you don't understand that)

Great, thanks Grenv for sacrificing your BKR to show us how it works, and prove some of us are not going insane LOL

My rating did indeed drop to 2133. :(

I must be going crazy, I could have sworn that didn't happen in the past. Sorry for wasting everyones time looking at numbers and formulas. At least we all understand how the numbers are applied now :)

So according to the formulas, my rating should go down to about 2133, based on

Rpost = Rpre + K (S - We) + B

Rpost = 2141 + 16.2212 ( 0.5 - 0.992 ) + 0

So, now we'll see!

Well I can't for the life of me work out why none of my drawn games does anything to my rating. I guess it's possible there's something wrong with some people's and not others?

Anyway as a paying member I'd like to be convinced. Is it possible to do a query of the database for historical ratings to see how individual games affected the rating.

If not I am about to conduct a test. I am rated 2141 at Atomic chess. I will challenge a friend of mine who has never played before and we will agree to a draw after several moves.

Before we do that could you let me know what you think my expected rating would be after the game.

I contend that it will still be 2141, but am prepared to be proved wrong.

here is the game

me too @*_*@
LOL

Ok I looked at that page and now my head hurts :)

I've finished two games as draws yesterday, both of them affected my BKR. The formula is still the same, here.
But it is also related to the new database model, currently under development.

my drop of 60 was enough proof to me that they drop or something wrong. I watched bkr deliberately to see what happens

I believe that I have enough data to prove to myself that draws have no effect on ratings.

Fencer, could you please share with us the formula used to calculate ratings? Also is there a way I could perhaps play a test game with you or anyone else to prove there is a bug in the ratings system?

Just trying to help by the way.

You think we should be that generous BBW? :-)

Maybe we should give him 10 days... it is the holiday season! :-)

Rofl! I'm sure we're all looking forward to it! (I know I am!!)

:-)

Don't count on it :-) But when it's done, it's done.

Hopefully! He did say it (and a few other things - i don't remember what exactly) should be done for the new year - he's got 9 days... :-)

I happen to know Fencer is always trying his best to help this site and the people who play here.
I'm sure he's quite aware of the various situations pending and that BK V.2 is going to be satisfactory for both the rich and poor :·)

We'll see....

          ~ MS

I reckon a way around some of the "wait till last minute move" and multi account posting. is a credit system. Move a certain amount of times before you earn a credit to allow reading or posting to boards. If you have no games, then no reading/posting at all. If all your games are waiting for opponents to move, then you can read and post to your hearts content .

;oÞ

Need we remind some it's Christmas

particulary blunt that remark about non-paying members.
almost gothic style after that thief embezzled the money.

I have only problems with fiddlers and cheaters.
Enough thus cannot be worse here.

please stop this buskvibes/taurec, it really is no fun for us to read.. and only causing more problems for yourself...

LMAO I do things like that in games Fencer, normally submit instead of undo LOL

well we knew he is no man.

Sorry, I clicked on "hide" instead of "ban".

Wouldnt be the first time would it Chatty LMAO

you talking to yourself steve.. i see 10 messages to read.. get here and only 2!!! hhhmmmmm lol

I would agree.
Do you not think this is just making you lower to the level of cheaters though? I reckon best action would be to lay off Fencer because he has made the right decision about the "cheater", which being a pawn, you havent seen.
Then by doing this you will show you are adult and on a higher level, and you will get the respect you probably deserve :o)

deliberately that is.

every honest player would be angry
at a webmaster harbouring cheaters while
stealing paid memberships and won games. :-(

Taurec, this is getting you no-where :o( You are directing your anger at the wrong person :o(

Join Brainking. Ah Blah.

the singing cheateres at the gothic board might feel disturbed else.

your visa at brainking are prolongued. :-(

else Filip would not be daring to leave his hideaway this year.

that remark even contains a cheat - again.

surely won't change anything. :-(

What is planned is planned and no complaints from non-paying members can change it.

Protection from cheaters is not planned yet, I see.
Guess you don't want to attract serious players. :-(

BBW: Lots of your proposed features are already planned :-)

A suggestion could be that there could be a few "global moderators" - which are able to edit/delete messages that may need it (and not have to wait for the main moderator or Fencer to get on to deal with it.)

At the same time, there should be someway to track what the global moderators do that way if there are problems, it can be tracked.

(For example - make a "bad stuff" board which can only be seen by Fencer, and whenever a moderator edits or deletes a message, it first gets copied to the "bad stuff" folder with the information of who deleted/edited which messages. That way, if a another moderator gets too big of a head, they can be tracked and delt with.

Monitoring the moderators should be higher priority.
Disappearing messages and provocations summon reactions.

I suggest to change the way how discussion boards are moderated. The new messages should become visble to everybody only after group moderator approves them. This will protect us from spam messages like we see currently on Gothic Chess discussion board.

Hey... you... the mall is open, why don't you go buy that last minute gift for that last minute invisible child ?

(Don't you just love those off-topic foolies?...me neither!)

I asked Fencer a while ago about the system automatically determining the winner of a section before all the games are complete (like it does on GoldToken, if any of you are familiar with that - it marks people as "eliminated" when they can no longer win, and marks player(s) as "winner" possibly even before all the games are complete, allowing future rounds to start with games from the previous round still in progress). Fencer said it was planned, but something like that would have to be tested heavily to ensure it works perfectly before he'd add it to the site, and that's the last i heard from him about it :-)

I'm not sure a Christmas amnesty won't be granted by Fencer for all those banned but there's no way of knowing. He may not have even thought about it. :)

Yea, it would still be nice for the tournament creator to still have the option to start the next round. I know for one of my tournaments, Danochek was the winner and getting ready to move to the next round - which I was waiting on an answer from Fencer to know if the ban was perminate or just temporary, but never got an answer.... which I did not want to start it if he was going to be back. But actually now that I look, the other player has not been on since Nov 10th, so I guess I'll start the last round and just let the games time out. Since they are 2 games per player, it should end as a tie which I believe is fair! :-)