Posts from Alternative rating.

Question!
How does this rating system account for the fact that at the beginning, everyone has the same rating, and it's advantageous to initially target weaker players to maximize points, and then play against stronger opponents?

Wow, you even found the Chess Federation of Namibia =)))

I support the opinion of the esteemed Wic that a "random" player can sometimes become the winner of a Tournament. And with their victory, they instantly soar to the top of the ranking, receiving, for example, 900 points. It's not logical, after all.

In the Elo rating system, it is accepted that the transition from one class of play to the next occurs approximately every 200 rating points. If the difference between two players is 200 points, the stronger player wins with a probability of 76%; if the difference is 400 points, the probability will be 91%. A difference of 600 points means the stronger player wins almost always (97%). If the ratings of both players are equal, the probability of either one winning is 50%. These probabilities, of course, do not take into account a player's current form on a given day. At the lowest class level, the Elo rating more often gives incorrect predictions of results, as players of this class make unpredictable mistakes more frequently.

The less often a chess player loses, the more accurately their rating can be assessed. The most accurate rating can be obtained from tournaments where players of roughly equal strength compete. The Elo rating system is based on the assumption that the strength of each chess player can be represented as a probabilistic variable following a normal distribution. The calculation of a specific player's rating based on the results of a tournament is founded on comparing the number of points they scored with the expected number of points predicted based on their rating. If, at the end of the tournament, the number of points scored turns out to be greater than the predicted value, that player's rating increases. If, at the end of the tournament, the number of points scored turns out to be less than the predicted value, that player's rating decreases.

Give an example of at least one tournament on HeroesWorld where a "random" or weak player became the winner?

I have already expressed my opinion, and I will add:
The winner of the tournament may not be the "strongest," but the "luckiest," and it would simply be unfair to reward the "winner" with a 1000-point advantage over their competitors, who may be lower in "level" but whose advantage should not be expressed in a 1000-point difference.

Everything is clearly explained in the links; I believe we should use a method that has been tested by time and millions, not just one person.

The most accurate rating can be obtained based on tournaments in which players of approximately equal strength play.

The Elo rating system is based on the assumption that the strength of each chess player can be represented as a probabilistic variable, following a normal distribution.

Its scientific basis is very questionable.

The calculation of a specific player's rating based on the results of a tournament is based on comparing the number of points they scored with the expected number of points, predicted based on their rating.

If, according to the results of the tournament, the number of points scored turns out to be greater than the predicted value, then the rating of that player increases.

Everything is clearly written in the links.

If tournament points are not taken into account, then this rating will only be a SMALL improvement over what exists.

For example, with a rating of 1850, a victory over a player with a rating of 1450 will only bring 1 point.

It's not anyone's fault that you didn't study English in school.