I am a bit surprised by the way the reatings system works.
For instance, Judy recently beat gwg_robot in a rated game of Golem's Word game (and she thoroughly deserved to win). As a result, her rating went up by 20 points, and gwg_robot's went down by 20 points. But Judy has over 400 played rated games, and gwg_robot only 23. So I would expect her rating to be pretty well established, and its to be still somewhat uncertain. Doesn't a result like Judy's win provide more information about its strength, than about hers? I would expect the robot's rating to fall by more than Judy's rises.
If you look at Judy's rating graph, it zigzags rapidly up and down. I don't think that this is becasue her play is volatile. I think it is because the algorithm is failing to recognise that some people's ratings are better known thatn others.
My graph "correctly" shows my playing ability, and it looks like a craggy mountain range. I do have a lot of games where, frankly, I can't see the words for the letters...........but, I still try. I do not play for score (note unrated games) I play for fun. I was very pleased to beat the Robot, since the last time around he trounced me pretty good. You are obviouslly following the rating system more than I have been aware of it, and you may have some valid points. But, your comments about my ability, are simply just kind---------and I thank you for looking out for me.
From what I have observed , I think the ratings system is designed to produce a snapshot of a players current strengh, it doesn't seem to matter if a player has played 1000 games or 10, your only as good as your last game.
My Street Soccer rating just went from 1500 to 1482 and I have not yet completed a rated game. I am in several tournament games at the moment but why would my rating go down before having completed 1 tournament game? Any ideas?
Oops- I did not know how to find my own page of stats- I just did and I must have been so into that game that I did not realize it was already to move 52. I'm learning more about the site every day and I am getting pounded as a rookie should.
Jan, I mean that the ratings arn't weighted, a player who has played 1000 games and is on a rating of 1600, would lose the same amount of points as someone who has the same rating after only 5 games, if they were to lose against the same opponent.
OK. But the system isn't too bad since the rating of an established player doesn't change a lot after a match against a new player. On most places I have played on the net, new players start off with a fixed "established" rating.
Any good rating system should try keep the inflation to an absolute minimum. If we would allow a system where one player could get more points than the opponent would loose, than at some point people will break through either a 10k barrier or through a -0 barrier. This is just a simple matter of mathematics.
Even good rating systems are subject to inflation. For example, it has been proven that the official chess rating, invented by Arpad Elo, is a victim of about 0.2% annually. This also explains that more people then ever before in the chess world have broken through a 2500 barrier. And that number will grow in the future.
The reason for this are low-rated people that drop out of play. Every player starts with a rating of 1000 or some other arbitrated number. A player quits playing chess at 900, which he lost at tournaments. So the chess community as a whole gains 100 points. This is where inflation comes in.
The are some more reasons inflation occurs, but maybe a mathmatician can explain those.
Little Golem