Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Kamikaze: I agree with you, but where were you before...?
I already wrote about it (page 21, post 616), and no one objected.
I understand how K0Lb@zzer's rating works. But I don't understand why the rating was divided by 2 in the first stage:confused:. After all, we didn't have any games before the first stage. So, the rating should have been divided by 1, that is, everything should have been left as it was. Then, add the second stage and divide by 2, and so on... And then there wouldn't be any disputes about how the winner is determined.
Because the rating was divided by 2 after the first stage, it turned out that everyone didn't gain enough rating in the subsequent stages, and the tables of points and ratings differ so much. All stages should be the same, and then the final rating could be 1000 or even a little more.