Calculating of score is based on simple EMA (Exponencial Moving Aveage) now.

Score(new) = (Score(old) x (KOEF-1) + result) / KOEF

KOEF is calculated from number of players in tournament ( 2*log(players)/log(2)). Unfinished games are calculated as draw.Result is 2 for win, 1 for draw, 0 for lost (StreetSoccer 0-5, Hahn Go 0-100).

Final score is multiply by 1000. Theoretical maximal score is 2000.

Until now has best score Max - 1998. He won 53 games from 54 rounds in French version of WYPS. http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/in/tournament.jsp?gtid=wyps&variant=fr

In tables (for example http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/in/tournament.jsp?gtid=shogi&variant=SHOGI56PLUS ) is not only current order, but there are score and order for all rounds.

Thank you Richard, this is an interesting concept.  What I miss now is the results of games played against each opponent and the win–lose standing (replaced by the moving average).

Small change: there are three grey shades for finished games (won-draw-lost). And in tooltip is opponent's name.

What happened to the list of won games/total games? Also, why are there two scores displayed?

Looks very neat though, very glad to see updates on the site! :)

By the way, although this is not connected to the tournaments, the two features I'd like to see the most are 1) the ability to edit messages on the forum, and 2) another rating graph, with the amount of games as x-axis rather than the date. Playing a lot in a short time and not playing at others doesn't make for a good graph.

Thank you for the great site, though! I don't think people say that enough.

::why are there two scores displayed ?

First is current score. Second (small grey font) is best score in history. But it is confusing.

I don't have an opinion about the new formula, but I like the ability to see your best historical score.

Best historical score is in yellow button too.

What is the P & G underneath the players' name?

Number of points and number of games.

I wonder whether you feel this way, but since old games matter much less each game's result causes a major swing in the points relative to other players. Thus it's common to lose a game and immediately drop five spots or more, even in the top ten. Similarly a win matters a whole bunch, even when the opponent might be relatively weak.

Unfortunately, I don't have any better solutions to immediately propose, but perhaps these issues should be taken into consideration at the very least.

Well, all players that are not very strong or very weak converge around 1000 points. If you cross that 1000 point line by winning or losing, you are bound to jump a few places. I guess that is typical for any tournament system similar to the swiss system, which this is.

Of course one can still argue about the relative weight of old versus new results and if I understand it correctly one simple parameter can be (and actually is) used for fine-tuning that. For me the balance looks about right, but that's surely a matter of taste.