Chess Rating

Would it not be nice to have a chess rating list where the top players has played at least e.g. 10 games (See Pablo Rodolfos comment under Country...)? Also I suggest that all new players should start at the 1000 level. Players who has not even played one game should not be on the list.

I think for the other game the last comment already applies... the not playing players are not on the list.
I don't agree on let starting new players at 1000, although the range of starting shouldn't be up to 2100 either.
If new good players start at 1000 bad players don't have the chance anymore to win RT's, on their level.

As it is now, the Chess Rating list is a bad joke. To have people automatically place themselves at 2100, then never play a rated game is a sham, and hurts those who play often, but can not get beyond the "retired" 2100 players. 1000 is too low for an experienced player. I suggest 1500. Let the top ten prove themselves by playing and winning games against the good players!

Possibly LittleGolem should look at a Provisional Rating system for the first 10 or 20 games, very efficient in quickly finding a player's real relative strength. uschess.org has information on this I'm sure.

Perhaps Richard did not employ a provisional rating because he knew people would constantly be complaining, "BWAAAAHHH, I won a game and lost rating points, BWAAAAAHHH" and decided he didn't need the headache. I can't say I blame him...

I have another suggestion... when a player is inactive for 30 days or more he loses 3 (or more) rating points a day. So at day 30 he loses 90 points, and then each day 3 additional points... (after a long time even I would be in front of the 2100's....)

This sounds more like a bonus-system than a rating system. Ratings are used to indicate a players strenght. If I dont play for 40 days, my strenght doesnt change so why should my ratign change?. It sounds a bit silly to make the rating depend on logon-frequency. With reversi games, everyone starts at the same ratings. That works great for reversi, but I can imagen it works too slow for chess (is that the reason why they have a different start rating for chess?).

A provisional rating (or a 'determ-start-rating' commitee) seems like the best solution. When people can determ their own start-ratings the ranking gets poluted.

I agree with klaashaas that ratings are meant to show how strong a player is, so it doesn't make sense to deduct points from a player's rating just because he hasn't played here for some time.
-------
I think the rating list should by default exclude players who have been inactive (in that particular game) for 100 days (or whatever).
This would solve the problem that Pablo Rodolfo is complaining about, if I understand his complaint correctly.
(Hjallti says "the not playing players are not on the list".
Unfortunately, this is not true for chess, or for go.
I'm on the 13x13 go rating list, even though I've never played a 13x13 game here.
Most of the players above me in the 9x9 go rating list have never played a 9x9 game here.)
-------
Provisional ratings are a fairly crude way to do things.
A better method would be something like the Glicko system (http://www.glicko.com/glicko.doc/glicko.html), with initial ratings having a high RD (so that they are not taken very seriously).

I said that not playing players are not shown in other games (then chess and go). The reason people can indicate rating in Chess and go is in fact that there the ratings are mostly known, as the other games don't have that standard. Anyway, I see the point that it would at least strange that rating would be reduced, but I guess it should be able to exclude non-playing players from the top10 list on the games page, or maybe just keep that top10 to players with at least 20 games, where as the full list should mention all players, but maybe in a extra column the number of games played here and the win/loss rate.

Hjallti wrote: "The reason people can indicate rating in Chess and go is in fact that there the ratings are mostly known, as the other games don't have that standard."
------ don't underestmate reversi! :-) http://othello.federation.free.fr/fede/class.php3

I played a lot of reversi, but never saw a rating or asking someone mine, and in chess and go it happens a lot, that's what I meant

I don't understand this rating system?
If you win nothing happened or close for nothing,
( win with a stronger player ) if you lose your
rating became smoler more that you expect.
I sugest for every game to give the information
about points lose or win to understand the principle!

Good idea Dogeanu.! A similer thing to Atlantic chess were u know how many points gained or lost from the game outset would be a nice extra touch.:)

Did you read the FAW, on the rating?

You know how many points you gained/lost by reading the system-message that is send after a game is finished.---It's not possible to know the rating-change earlier, since it depends on the current ratings of both players. And can change every moment.

bump