Speaking of ratings (and finishing all discussions based on ridiculous notes about random numbers), I've just finished my BKR history generator and make the first test run (on my local computer, of course).
The results are very good, I think. Some differences between current values and recalculated ones can occur but nothing too drastic (+-50 points).
It will be launched when I am absolutely sure the generator is correct and when I finish a graph drawing engine.

at least BK tries to have 1. It's Fencer site and if he wishes. It could be like IYT site and not have a rating at all.
Yes from time to time I did not think some of my games was right but I just looked at it as, well at least we have something to look at.
BBW, I would like to thank you for what you put. cause with the 1700.2 and 1700.4 it now make a little more sence of why some times you win a game but you don't seem to move in rating.
Again TYVM Fencer for giving as something to look at and a way to kinda conpair who is close to my skill in said game.
:o{P

When we all started, our Gothic BKR was 1300. So it was very very difficult to "climb up". We had 1900 and 2000 players clubbing each other to break 1500.

Mt 2400 rating was an 1100 point climb the hard way. That other person's was from winning against a "higher rated" player, then mediocre play compounded the rating.

All you have to do is beat a strong person early on, once, and you can pole vault over someone who has won 500 games and lost none.

From then on, just draw every game, and you lose 0 points.

Not a very realistic representation of a real rating system.

YOu are right Stevie :)

It does depend on what bkr the opponents had too though doesnt it

Conversely, I win over 100 games of Gothic Chess without a loss, and hardly scrape past 2400. Then someone else comes along and goes only 7-0 and was rated higher than me for a few months.

Not very realistic.

ED : first 25 games will be your BKR optimal .

If you lost some games now , dont be suprised if your bkr will decrease with hundred points :)

I played tournament chess for 11 years and never broke 2300. I played here for a week and have a 2600+ rating in chess.

Not very realistic.

Established ratings are good enough for assessing a potential opponent's strength relative to one's own, give or take a couple of hundred points, and as one doesn't want to be confined within too small a band of suitable opposition I would say the ratings for the far greater part function usefully.

No comment from me on the ratings. After all, I am mentioned by Mark Glickman, official USCF Ratings Chairman, as having successfully implemented his new, highly accurate system correctly in his first paper he published on it years ago at Boston Universtity.

I offered to help Fencer way back when, but got the stereotypical "nothing is wrong with the ratings" reply.

I know exactly what Fencer is doing wrong, since he is constantly referring to a very old paper Mark wrote, which DOES NOT consider calculating the so-called "rating period" variable properly the way we need (rate after a 1-game trial, not many provisional games in parallel).

Hope everyone else enjoys the random 4-digit number next to their name :)

ohhh. well if you put it that way...yeah, i definitely would not be happy with people incessantly shaking me awake and demanding explanations of rating systems! :D

Its 7am I guess? cos its 6am here LOL wohoohohoooo only 2hrs till home time LOL I am still being polite LOL

Right. But do you know what time is here? I am still sleeping :-)

c'mon, Fencer, be nice now. everybody else is.

not everyone has encountered your previous explanations, nor will everyone go looking for them on blind faith that they're around here somewhere (you know how many boards there are here, and how many messages are on each one!). as people join BK and see weird BKRs that don't seem to make any sense, they're going to continue to ask this question. and unless and until a system of BKRs is implemented that *does* appear to make sense at first glance, the questions will keep coming. just ignore them if you like; it's evident that you don't *need* to keep explaining because other people who grasp the system, like BBW, will do it for you.

your time is much better spent on updating and upgrading and tweaking and all the other vastly more important stuff that only you can do.

right? :)

BBW: Yes, it would be useful for me as well :-) I currenly sort bugs by priority, so it shows the open ones at the top of the list.

Yea, the bug list is getting long - hard to remember what is there or not.

Fencer - I know it's not a top priority, but would be nice to sort bug list to show still open bugs only.

thank you very much, BBW - that's just the kind of explanation i was hoping for!

yea verily dost thou rule. :)

tiger

Thanks BBW, I must have missed that one

Stevie - I think that is a bug if there is a draw (Bug #7)

If that was not a draw, then there is another problem. :-)

How many more questions about BKR? Whether the formula seems fair or unfair, accept it. I explained it many times and I don't want to repeat it again.
Vacation days should be fixed.

Doing the math, especially when users have few games you can see a lot of weired things..... and when i say few games, that is under 100.

1) Doing the math, even if you win you could actually lose rating points. (But I believe in the coding of BK, you will never lose points for a win - even if the math says so) - hence, sometimes your rating will just not move.

2) Ratings are rounded. So if says you have 1700, you may actually have 1700.2 --- and then if you win, your rating might raist to 1700.4, but will still show as 1700.

3) The fewer games you have finsihed, the more erradic your rating will be. BK tries to solve this a little to not even show you ratings until 4 games are done, and not show established until 25 games are complete. (Heck, I actually think I read somewhere where 400 games should be the minimum amount of games that need to be complete before getting a good established rating.)

4) Good news is that Fencer is working on a way to recalculate all the ratings from day 1 on all the games soon.... so if people really think things are off a little (And my froglet rating is about 30 points to low because of a bad game timeout), it will be fixed!

Stevie: old BKR = 1748, new BKR = 1748 (0)
fullmoonhawke: old BKR = 1799, new BKR = 1799 (0)

I am the one who was and is 1799 and fullmoonhawke is/was 1748

It swapped the bkr, but luckily left them correct on our profiles LOL

i recently had some funky business with BKRs too: here are the results of the last four games of Froglet i completed, in order:

plaintiger: old BKR = 1700, new BKR = 1700 (0)
MsDelete: old BKR = 1301, new BKR = 1240 (-61)

plaintiger: old BKR = 1700, new BKR = 1700 (0)
Paula29: old BKR = 873, new BKR = 871 (-2)

plaintiger: old BKR = 1700, new BKR = 1700 (0)
TJ: old BKR = unrated, new BKR = unrated

plaintiger: old BKR = 1700, new BKR = 1707 (+7)
Lorraine: old BKR = unrated, new BKR = unrated

can anyone explain the logic behind this (without getting too much into mathematics, which will serve no purpose but to bewilder me instantly)?

why did i get no points for three wins in a row - for one of which my opponent lost SIXTY-ONE points, and one of which was against an unrated player - and then get seven points for the fourth game, also against an unrated player?

this makes no sense to me at all.

oh yeah: the ratings of the first two players were established (not provisional).

thanks...

le tigre

Stevie, I think 1500 is the axis so 1600 is way above compared to 1200 which is way below.

I was aprox 1650bkr, playing someone aprox 1250.
I win, and get +7, they get 0
we draw other game, I lose 32, they get +42
I could understand changes of that size on a draw when high and low bkr, but those bkr are both mid range id have said :o(

rats. I liked have 30 days again.

Yes, there was a bug. It will be fixed with the next update.

I'll check it.

I thought the vacation counter is reset on January 1st?
I've just looked at mine, and it says 30 left. I know I've taken days in July, I think I've checked 15 days. mind you, I'm not complaing...

I want to place it to some "smarter" location when I find out how it can be done in Javascript and DHTML :-)

Yes, any page - right above & to the left of "Main page" in the left hand menu.

I'm not sure how it looks when the page is not in the columns layout - I think I'll go look!

EDIT - Just looked, same place. :-)

It works from any page, not just the 'main page' What I'm saying is that you can do it from here, from inside a game, or anywhere :)

BBW, thanks, I followed your instuctions for eagle eye and it works for me. Live and learn a new thing everyday; that's what they say.

I think it is for knights and above only. Plus it sounds like it does not work with WebTV either.

To see it, first you have to change your settings so Javascript will work.

Then in the upper left corner of the screen (above & left of "Main Page"), if you stick your mouse there, a drop down menu will list the first 30 games which it is your turn to move in the order that in on the main page.

I'm lost :-) what is a Hot Spot? how can I see it? and what it for?

first of all you have to be at least a knight

..cant seem to find out where you upload a photo to your profile.can anyone advise please?
8^)steve

seems Skyking deleted his question again and made everyone looks silly LOL

Of course I am here. And it's not a bug. It can happen when you are close to the limit and new tournament games are generated for you.

Ooooops!!...i was sure i had "him" on hide!!...done!! LOL

Can you sort out these clocks.

The number on my bike lock is 6413, (dont tell LongJohn in case he sends some boys round to nick it) that's a total of 14, my problem is at which numbers should I best set it when I'm away?

I'm a numbers girl, I want to teach math. I don't get up high often anyway, and 15 vs 7 is a big deal! lol but now it's all fixed. thanks stevie.

My problem, I'll mention whatever you'd like.

oooooooooops nope, thats my post count isnt it LOL

Mentioning wha?

nope, its you who keeps mentioning it LOL

I thought your nerdity was about total moves?(?).

add me to that list then Ughaibu

What amazes me is that even two (Erinity and Gothic) are so nerdy about their ratings that they actually noticed.