Would the correct rating system change?

Looking at Allever's star rating in the gomoku rankings, I propose to change the rating system. More specifically, I'm talking about the rule: The winner must always get at least 2 points. I would like to change this rule to: The winner never loses points. Let's look at the calculation formula: R(new) = R(old) (S x 21) (R(opponent) - R(old)) / 25 What would be the limit of the difference in the players' ratings for the winner to get one point? R(new) - R(old) = (S x 21) (R(opponent) - R(old)) / 25 S(result) = 1 (win) 21 (R(opponent) - R(old)) / 25 = 1 R(opponent) - R(old) = (21 1)*25 = 550 Conclusion: when playing with a player who has a score 550 lower than your rating, you will not win any points. What do you think of such a change?

I would be in favor of a slightly larger rating gap, somewhere around 1700-2000. For example, in checkers there are decent players with a rating of about 1650 and Ruudu would have no interest in playing against them otherwise. Besides, since Allever is already over 550p ahead of everyone in gomoku, he should also be given the opportunity to earn more points:)

700-1000, not 1700-2000 of course:p. But otherwise, bye.

Yes - this mostly concerns three users: Ruut, Allever and Ants. However, I hope that as enthusiasts they will not lack motivation to play board games. One way to motivate them is to change their rating to 2200 points :)

By the way, both the Estonian Chess Federation and the international chess federation FIDE apply a rating difference of 500 points in this regard. So in light of this, 550 seems very reasonable.

I'm definitely in favor of changing the rating system. However, like fantunes at first, I think 550 is too small a range. I don't remember exactly how many points you can earn in one game in the FIDE system, but I think it was significantly less than 41 points like in Vind. Renju uses, for example, an international rating system with a win-loss of 32 points and a maximum range of 725, so with 41 points it could be proportionally 900-1000

We use the CXR rating system. There are also links under the game information where you can read a lot about this rating system. Personally, I think it doesn't matter whether the number is 500 or 1000 or 2000. Once a tough player reaches this gap (and he definitely will), he will be in the same situation one way or another - he won't get points for winning. Whether that gap is with those average players, or with the second place holder. But I don't support lowering the points of the tough guys to 2200. Let them be far ahead there.. they will lose their points - they can't win them anyway. I believe that the situation will soon become stable again after some time after the changes.

Yes - this rating change for the top three was a little joke :) But tomorrow (29.11) morning, a new rating system will go into effect!

Thought - done!

I wouldn't be too upset if my rating was also set to minus 2000 :) Anyway, the golden one and I have essentially no chance of getting an allever, because he won't start playing with the strong ones anyway. But that's it, I have one additional suggestion. In many places, inactive players are either removed from the table altogether or some amount of rating is taken away from them after a while. The latter probably doesn't have to be done here, but if a player doesn't play for a month, for example, his color in the table could turn gray and be removed from the table altogether after 2-3 months.