Tournaments and player rating.

The problem is that if rating is awarded only in tournament games, it will also be far from objective due to too short a distance. More precisely, this distance would have to be played over years for any objectivity. And while a few top players would more or less match their rating, the fluctuations for mid-level players would be far from objective.

For a start, we could just try it and see what happens; one doesn't preclude the other. Any rating will be non-objective due to the short distance. Of course, it takes time; simply, if we start now – it will take one year less than if we start a year from now. I don't know how labor-intensive it is to sample tournament games from recent years and take another look at the picture.

Well, this point can't be regulated at all. What can you do if players agree to play fun games without a report? You can't force them to post a report.

That's exactly it – you can, if you take a sample from tournaments; there are no games without reports, no 150 games with the same person, there are boundaries you can't step outside of.

Such a rating shows the state of affairs at the current moment.

And how many more years will it take for the rating to be not current, but real? :D

The HeroesWorld rating formula is copied from chess; they've been calculating with this very formula for several decades now.

Somehow I doubt that in chess, ratings are maintained based on fun games. Or what? We contact FIDE: "Hey, we just, uh, played a casual game with Kostyan, please calculate us" :D Though I could be wrong; if that's really the case, then who knows. I think, since we took the formula from chess, it makes sense to adopt the entire scheme by which the calculation is organized.

Well yes, it's just "ordinary," "standard," yet the "strongest" tournament of the forum, which the best HeroesWorld players try to qualify for every year (except Sticky, it seems)

Name me a dad who actively plays Heroes but doesn't care about FB? All currently active players participate in the qualifier.

35 aiwe 116 79 198 1680
70 javdet 350 259 621 1580

A paradox? Or is the rating slightly underperforming? I have a feeling that if the rating were calculated only from tournament games, we wouldn't see such a picture. I believe that the best players of the forum, moreover the top-10, and Aiwe and Javdet are such by definition, as they qualified among the best HeroesWorld players (except Sticky, of course ;) ), should also be somewhere near the top of the rating.

Today, the forum's main rating is a mix of indicators of player skill and the amount of free time.
Yes, it has gained objectivity compared to the earlier period, but it has many inaccuracies related to the possibility of manipulation, since there are no boundaries. By and large, purely theoretically, almost any average player could sneak into the top 10, if they had the time; but without results in tournaments, there is no rating, no matter how much time you have – you can't buy skill in a store(c). Of course, it's the player's choice; maybe this rating that reflects purely skill, rather than a mix of free time and strength, isn't needed, but the advantages are clearly there... ugh damn, I'm even tired :D