rednaz23: It is like a one game.

Fencer: I still have problems to see the sense behind this regulation. It may be useful in games where luck is more relevant, but for chesslike games it's at least unusual. Who would have said that Fischer beat Taimanov, Larsen, Petrosian and Spassky 1:0 each, and would it have been fair to rate it this way instead of his actual 6:0, 6:0, 6,5:2,5 and 12,5:8,5?

In my eyes there are two major reasons against the current handling of matches:

1) The new rating doesn't reflect the performances of the players properly. ELO-calculation is based on the difference between the expected score (determined by the ELO-difference between the two players) and the actual score of the game(s). So if I win my match by 4:0 against a an even-rated opponent, my score is two points above my expectation, but if it's rated as one game it's only 0,5 above the expectation. If my opponents rating and my own would be 2100 each, then according to http://www.kosteniuk.com/EloCalc/uscf.php my rating would go up by 31 in case of a 4:0 and only 8 in case of a 1:0.

2) The game statistics of players who mostly play matches hardly have any significance. If a player has won two matches by 10:9, he still appears to be unbeaten, although he already has lost 18 games, and he appears to have played only two games yet, although he would have obtained an established rating if he had played 38 single games instead of two matches. Maybe this problem could be solved by a separate match statistics page?

kleineme: Amen!

kleineme: Right On:)