Single Comment

Gary is right, many games people have played have been coffe-games, test
games or fun games in which result was not important, but it can be used
for a 'first' number, as follows. This is s pseudo-ELO idea, and it can
be good for us:
At first, we need a 'preliminar' measure, but it is going to be modified
after the first calculation, and it is going to be an adjusted measure with
time, once all people is concious about how it works. The first number is
A= 1000+ (Points/Number fo games)*1500, for everyone. Points is calculated
as usual, 1 for win, 0.5 for draw. Number of games refers to
LOGS in the last 365 days. After that, we can run an algorithm, sequenced
by time, and in each game the rating is modified as follows: If player A
has a highest rating than B, and he wins, his rating is modified with the
added change rate= K*(2500 - Rating of player A)/2500. K is a factor,
usually 1, but it can be modified in tournaments, to, say, 2 or 3. This
change rate is also substracted of the player´s B rating. If Player B
wins, his rating is modified with the added change rate= K*(Rating of
player A - Rating of player B)/C. C is a number that must indicate how
fast we need reflect the 'force change' in a player. I suggest C=100,
and K is the 'Tournament factor'. This rate change is substracted from
player´s A rating. In case of draws, the last rule applies, but with rate
change divided by two. An unrated player is considered, at first, with a
rating of 1000, unless he gives some evidence of another rating, and it
can be used, translated to our scale. Try some examples, and you can see
that this is a very reasonable measure.