ELO 200

[ckwatt]

Apparently, anyone who played a game once or twice and had a 1500 ELO according to the old system now has 200, which makes them appear to be somewhat experienced players. Of course we can all just look skeptically at 200 ratings, but wouldn't it be better to fix this discrepancy?

[Jest Phulin]

Do you have specific instances to show where this is happening?

[Romain672]

If you take my profil there is some example :
Nautilus 210, Libertalia 225, Hex 216, Belote 266, Elfenland 195, Dame de Pique 285, Kahuna 178, Senet 230, Koi-koi 230, Kalah 175, Puerto Rico 203, Jump Gate 163, etc...


If you have 0 games played: new ELO = 0.
=> fine. (example : Dark agent)

If you have more than 4 games played: new ELO = old ELO - 1300, with a minimum of 100.
=> There is some problem with that : i have some game with 5~8 game played, and i got a good amount of elo, like 170, when i just should be at 50. (like Tash-Kalar or Stone age, where i should be at 1, or Nautilus, i'm at 210, where i should be at 90 since i only played against begginner)

If you have between 0 and 4 games played: new ELO = old ELO - 1300, with a minimum of 1.
=> This one have some problem too, the game where i got one victory are actually at 230, when i have the level of someone who got 30. (example : Koi-koi)


Initially, the solution was fine, since the old player would have not loose any elo. But now it's a minor problem.
But now, if you want to change these elo, it will be very difficult since some player have played many game and have an elo of 200 who is their level.

[Jessicannot Sp eak]

if a player plays a no elo game, he get 200 elo in 1game

is this a system to retain old players

[ckwatt]

This is particularly often the case for games that people played once or twice before the changeover. I'd hate to name anyone here (since it could embarrass them and it's not their fault), but I also have a couple of games that are even above 200, even though I only played once (before the change in ELO system).

[RicardoRix]

There is definitely something strange or atleast very vague about players with ELO ratings below 200. I could give you examples, but that's mainly based on experience playing games.

The point of having a starting ELO of 1500 (or 1400 with most chess websites) is that your ELO rating can go down below the initial value, for example with FICS I was about ELO 1100, when you saw anyone with ELO exactly 1400 you knew it was a new player.

But you can't go less that 0, so something is messed up, there must be some kind of compromise to allow that.

[Liallan]

This is particularly often the case for games that people played once or twice before the changeover. I'd hate to name anyone here (since it could embarrass them and it's not their fault), but I also have a couple of games that are even above 200, even though I only played once (before the change in ELO system).

Oh, I think I have some of these and it doesn't embarrass me. And I knew there was going to be a problem with this right from the start, because simply dropping 1300 from your old score makes no sense. I don't know how ELO is calculated, but I know it's not a simple linear thing like that, and not being able to fall under 100 or go negative I figured would cause trouble.

I don't have tons of any given game because I only play turn-based and often only play 5-6 games at once. I figure after enough time these issues would start to work themselves out, but since the change-over, not all of my games have been played, and I've only got one play of others, etc. I think the most I have of a given game is maybe 5-6 additional games since the change. In fact, I have a list of the games and I marked my old ELO and am listing the new ones out to the side of that so I can follow it, and then purposely trying to get some of the games going that haven't yet been played and trying to work on getting several of them in. I don't know how many games it would take to make these more realistic. I would also think this would throw things off with anyone else I play. The only up side is that I wasn't higher than high 1600's in anything, which translated into 300's, and most are now 100-200's, and I'm mostly not playing high level players who might care more.

I also don't think the descriptions line up very well, that is, what's an average or good player, etc. A couple of my old "good player"s just turned into "strong player"s and I don't really agree with that.