ELO rank now visible from everyone!

[Slimbo]

So if you beat a beginner who has 0 points, do you still get points from somewhere?

[sourisdudesert]

So if you beat a beginner who has 0 points, do you still get points from somewhere?

Of course, yes. As if you had won over a 1300 elo players in the "previous system".

[AngryPanda]

This is great for the players! Unfortunately I've got some Club Membership time left for which I've already paid, but there is no reason to renew now...

[dudi2]

If you have between 10 and 20 games played, K=40 (you win 40 points against a player with the same ELO).

I think this should be: "you win 20 points" to be similar to the other two statements...

[agentlik]

Please, fix changes in rating.

Yesterday I had rating 205, my opponent - 262. He won and get 25 points https://boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=26423164 But he had higher rating!!! And get 25 points.

Today I had 288 and my opponent had 318. I won and got only 11 points despite my opponent had higher rating. https://boardgamearena.com/#!table?table=26471048

So, yesterday stronger opponent got more than me today after victory against stronger player.

Moreover, yesterday win between equal player costs 20 ELO points. Today only 10 points. Please, check formula or comment why I got only 11 points today. Thank you.

[sourisdudesert]

So, yesterday stronger opponent got more than me today after victory against stronger player.

The formula is correct. We changed the K-factor. Please read the last question of the FAQ.

[Canis Minor]

Happy New Year to all!
BGA, thank you for a lot of new games, Nippon a decent addition among them!

As to the new rating system... well, it was very nice to read that now we have another rank, "strong player", since "good player" used to cover too much range.
But alas, some of its features seem like a misunderstanding :/

The 1500 was a perfect starting threshold (as it would have been if it was 1200 or 1000). But the new "zero" is acceptable as well, although a bit less legible and elegant, in my opinion of course. But I think I can live with this. ;)

[b]What is really worst, it is the new rules set applying to the range 0 - 100. [/b]

"From 1 to 100 ("Apprentice" level), you can only win ELO points (your ELO cannot decrease)."

Well, how do you know this is still ELO rating then? :shock:
ELO grows up whenever you beat your opponent and drops whenever you lose (despite the fact the loss or gain might be 0 if you play against someone several categories far enough from you). And that's why the single best feature of any true Elo system is that it informs that a player with Elo 1500 has an equal chance of losing to a 1700 as winning against a 1300, and all information that derives from the above.

Now we have a player with Elo, say, 53, and it's meaning is messed up quite a lot. We do not know the real playing strength of that player, because, in fact, he may be at -500 as well as at "real" 53. But before he reaches 100 his Elo never decreases, which implies that we can say nothing about his chances against a 15 (which, in turn, may be not a real "15" at all) or a 200, or any other number.

The same thing goes with the new rule you can never drop below 100 "Elo" after you reached it. A player rated 100 may be in fact 100 as well as -200, if he starts to blunder heavily.

Maybe the players in the former "average player" rank have their Elo not that interesting to picture it accurately, but I also think we all know that a great majority of BGA visitors and members fall into this category.

Please, take no offense, but I think that the new system is very obscure and unclear compared to the one invented by great Arpad Elo, and that's why I have a request - [b]please, BGA Team, make the old Elo values / system possible to display instead of the current one in the preferences, at least for the Club Members.[/b] Or just lift the restrictions of "never getting below 100" and "never dropping below any value before you hit 100", and the system will get quite productive.

Thank you.

[agentlik]

So, yesterday stronger opponent got more than me today after victory against stronger player.

The formula is correct. We changed the K-factor. Please read the last question of the FAQ.

but why? 10 points is too small

If player with 1600 won against player with 1800 he will obtani only 15 points with similar player - 10. 5 points is too much when difference in rating is so big, isn't it?

[sourisdudesert]

Thank you.

Thanks to your comment.

All what you say is true : ELO is a great system to evaluate the level of an player, and by introducing this minimum we partially broke that system - at least for the weakest players and beginners.

But on the other hand, ELO is a really bad system from a game design perspective. Telling a beginner after his/her first game that he/she has a worst level (1470) than initially (1500) is really discouraging.

By introducing the minimum, we have the best of the two worlds : a system that rewards efforts for new players, and then a system that rewards skills for regular players.

[sourisdudesert]

5 points is too much when difference in rating is so big, isn't it?

Well, there is no "so big" or "so small". Many players was complaining about the high K factor on BGA compared to - for example - the one used for Chess (see here for example). The K factor is still pretty high on BGA, but now it is no more excessively high