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.
I believe that the seasonal rating doesn't even come close to reflecting the actual strength of the players.
The rating will accurately reflect the strength of the players if there are many games. If there are at least 30-50 games for each player, then the rating will reflect a lot.
The rating will accurately reflect the players' strength if there are many games. If each player has at least 30-50 games, the rating will reflect a lot.
I completely agree. Although, I think it's worth considering the rating of your opponent when calculating the rating, otherwise, a 3rd-level player, for example, wins 30 games against a 4th-level player, without losing a single one, while a grandmaster playing against grandmasters and masters has a slightly positive score. In that case, would the 4th-level player have a higher rating?
As for zloy_romantik, to avoid repetition, read here: /topic/at/385763/; there are links there.
In the comments on the permanent rating at the end of spring, I wrote:
Naturally, its objectivity is more relevant for those players who have played more games in these one and a half years. Unfortunately, I don’t have statistics on the number of games played. There are also many "ghost accounts" there.
Yes, we need to include the number of games played in the permanent ranking table. I will try to do this by the end of winter. zloy_romantik
I-86, Stinger-87 :D. Doesn't anyone think that something needs to be changed with this rating system, because it doesn't even remotely reflect the real state of affairs?:smile18:
But how can anything be changed if Stinger now mainly plays poker? And didn't he appear on HW only occasionally before? Should we include RP-2 games from past years? Or should we include a player in the rating by looking at some save file? How can we add Danish player Maretti to our rating if he isn't even registered on the site? He actually plays very often and could easily be near the top. Dream tried to create a Unified Rating for the Runet, but it requires all players to post all their games there. That's why it failed.zloy_romantik
... I think you should take into account your opponent’s rating when calculating the rating...
The formulas are in the Rules. This is taken into account. You get significantly more points for winning against a player with a higher rating than for winning against an underdog.
There's a suggestion for players who skip a season or two in a row (inactive players) to gradually decrease their rating. The number of points to decrease could be determined by the admins or through a vote.
P.S. Couldn't find any other topics regarding the rating system.
I have a suggestion for players who skip a season or two seasons in a row (i.e., inactive players): gradually lower their rating by a certain number of points. This can be determined either by the administration team or through a vote.
P.S. Couldn't find any other topics about ratings.
But there, Satyr suggested simply removing non-playing users. I can remove him from the list. What you are suggesting is quite time-consuming (determining it within the admin team, conducting a vote, calculating those to be removed based on forum activity, writing some formulas, programming...), and there isn't much point in doing so; it would be a waste of time...
But there, Satyr suggested simply removing inactive players. I can remove them from the list. What you are suggesting is quite time-consuming (determining in AK, conducting a vote, calculating those who dropped out based on forum activity, writing some formulas, programming...), and it doesn't make much sense to spend time on it...
Well, at least don't include those who obviously haven't played for 1-2 seasons in the top 10?:cool:
at least exclude those who clearly haven't played for 1-2 seasons from the top 10, right?:cool:
I agree with the top 10; the results are based on the seasonal ranking, so it makes sense not to include those who haven't played a single game in the season. The sorting by permanent ranking has also grown significantly – 3 years ago, only 84 players had more than 30 games, and now there are over 200. So, this time, I'll raise the bar to 40 games. We'll see what happens in half a year. As usual, I'll attach a separate file with statistics for all players; there are already 849 players registered.
I agree with the top 10; the results are based on the seasonal ranking, so it makes sense not to include those who haven't played a single game in the season. The sorting by permanent ranking has also grown significantly – 3 years ago, only 84 players had more than 30 games, and now there are over 200. Therefore, this time, I will raise the bar to 40 games. We'll see what happens in six months. As usual, I will attach a separate file with statistics for all players; there are already 849 players registered.
I will repeat myself once again!!! Previously, the ranking was calculated differently, and the overall skill level of the players was much lower. Because of this, the inactive top players who previously boosted their ranking are now unattainable even for the current top players. The point of the ranking is to score more, and how to score more, let's say, if previously, I'll allow this word, they used a "BUG" :)) (well, for example, such a word) when calculating the ranking. Based on this, I suggest removing N points from any player with 1700 or more points after 2 seasons of inactivity (for example, 50 or 75). This should only be done for players who are above 1700 in the ranking; if the threshold is below 1700, nothing should be done!:cool: The conditions can, of course, be adjusted
I want to get an initial rating of 709388685 and play in seasonal games. How do I do that?
First, learn to read, then learn to read the rules for participating in seasonal games or tournaments (they are usually on the first page), and don't just sign up for everything you see. Then, fulfill these conditions, and only then will your wish be fulfilled.
Dirty_Player
