Fair enough, although the same counter argument could be made for online. On online platforms is much easier to store a single number per player, than a string of values that stores its last n games. My point is that player improvement is achieved through time, not suddenly, so this constant waves are a bit meaningless. Even on systems that do not use ELO, tournaments tend to be treated as a block, where a series of games result in an increase or decrease of your ranking.Ceaseless wrote: ↑12 April 2024, 12:16I'm thinking this is more of an access issue. Chess tournaments IRL may be slow on the update, but they're old and used to be even slower. On the other hand, modern rating systems in online Chess update immediately, BGA isn't unique in this regard. I've not seen anything to indicate the Chess system you refer to chose its pace for its accuracy.1000esqrtn1 wrote: ↑12 April 2024, 07:14He has a point though, on most competitions that use ELO, ELO is not constantly updated. It shows some flaws the fact that if I play 4 consecutive games against the same player (assuming he is already medium-experienced) WWWL will always give less points than LWWW. The player is the same, it was a single play session so the outcome should be the same.
A common idea that we most agree on this topic is that Arena is too long, which difficult things like freezing ELOs. However, ELOs/Arena Points could be updated once per week/2 weeks. Hence, in that period you know how much your wins will be worth. As said, this is not new, as most Chess tournaments work like this
The point is what do we value higher, streaks or consistent perfomance? The first values better LW than WL, while the latter values them equal. I prefer the latter
. 
). And i continue reading as others add, even though i still don't understand 100% of all of it. I don't think i necessarily have an issue with someone starting the season weak, improving, and ending the season in #1. That could arguably be motivation for others to keep playing and trying.