BrainKing - Forums de discussion (BrainKing.com)

Modérateur: Hrqls

, coan.net

, rod03801

BrainKing.com

Board for everybody who is interested in BrainKing itself, its structure, features and future.

If you experience connection or speed problems with BrainKing, please visit Host Tracker and check "BrainKing.com" accessibility from various sites around the world. It may answer whether an issue is caused by BrainKing itself or your local network (or ISP provider).

World Of Chess And Variants (videos from BrainKing): YouTube
Chess blog: LookIntoChess.com

Liste des forums de discussions
Vous n'êtes pas autorisé de poster des messages dans ce forum. Le niveau d'adhésion minimal requis pour poster dans ce forum est Cavalier.

Mode: Tout le monde peut poster

16. Juillet 2003, 15:21:13

Tactician

ses messages postés | suivre le fil | lien

Sujet: Re: ratings

That isn't in the Elo system which is what the USCF uses, which is what we use. A ratings system that takes into account dates is Glicko and Glicko2.

16. Juillet 2003, 16:42:39

Uil

ses messages postés | suivre le fil | lien

Sujet: Re: ratings

It is also in the Elo, they mark ratings from player who did not play enough games in the last year with an *, anyhow the FIDE (The world chess federation)does so, I am not familiar with the USCF way to handle this

16. Juillet 2003, 17:03:11

Tactician

ses messages postés | suivre le fil | lien

Sujet: Re: ratings

Well, its not in the formula, but FIDE marks players like that to keep their rating list up-to-date. They don't recalculate the rating or anything just remove it from their Top 100 List. Bobby Fischer still has a 2700+ rating, he just isn't shown on the list.

16. Juillet 2003, 17:45:50

Uil

ses messages postés | suivre le fil | lien

Sujet: Re: ratings

For that you're right, but they don't count the 10 or 20 year old games played by Kortsnoi or Karpov in there actual rating

17. Juillet 2003, 04:28:20

Dmitri King

ses messages postés | suivre le fil | lien

Sujet: Re: ratings

UIL and Tactician-- I think the number of games played by an opponent should be irrelevant. Why does it matter? Once a player is established, who cares? I think ti is absurd that I gain more opints winning a game against a 2000 player with 50 games than against a 2000 player with 45 games.

21. Juillet 2003, 08:27:48

Uil

ses messages postés | suivre le fil | lien

Sujet: Re: ratings

I agree, never said it had to be that way