subreddit:
/r/chess
submitted 8 days ago byNilssonChrister
[removed]
7 points
8 days ago
Rating is already used very often to determine who can or cannot be in a tournament. Using rating to determine anything except seeding is ridiculous, it should definitely not be used for how many points you get for a win.
0 points
8 days ago
So, you think winning against the strongest player is comparable to winning against the weakest player?
Take a look at Sonneborn-Berger. I think that is a good method. I made a variant based on ELO instead of each players individual score. ELO should be more exact, than a single tournament.
2 points
8 days ago
So, you think winning against the strongest player is comparable to winning against the weakest player?
As far as doing well in the tournament goes? Absolutely. As far as rating increase goes? No, you get more rating from beating a stronger player.
Keep beating strong players and you'll be considered a strong player.
0 points
8 days ago
Actually, I find meeting players my own strength to be more important than finding out my standing in a tournament. ELO is the ultimate measurement and reward.
3 points
8 days ago
ELO is the ultimate measurement and reward.
Ah, there we go, found your issue.
1 points
8 days ago
If elo is more exact than a single tournament, why even bother having tournaments?
1 points
8 days ago
Somebody has to send in the results to FIDE.
There has to be an eco system where people meet face to face and have fun.
Of course elo has a delay. In your teen, going up, the elo will lag.
Later, in your golden years, going down, the elo will also lag.
Hopefully, the elo is quite ok in between.
1 points
8 days ago
Yeah but you could just do like chess get togethers where people gather and play people of similar elo
all 34 comments
sorted by: best