Single Comment

The information must be expanded adding drawn games. By example, 10 victories + 6 draws + 4 loses may be indicated as 13 points/20 games. A player that shows 20 draws in 20 games has an effectivity of 50%, but it is indicated as 0/20, and it distorts the information. I´m not enterely convinced of the goodness of the method, but I think it is, at first view, reasonable, and I understand the intention with some modifiers present in the algorithm, but I´m not very sure they are solid enough or the best possible. The experience or tests can show more about it, also showing the strong and weak points. It is too soon for me to say much more, or to compare it with ELO, but when I have some time, I´ll try to go more deep on it. One point of serious discussion is whether a rated player must lose rating when defeated by a less rated player, and if the response is accepted to be YES, how much must be the lose?. ELO is a relative measure, it works in that way, and experience has shown it is almost perfect in this way, considering the opinion of experts. The cause may be due to the fact that, at good leveles of play, luck is not of extereme importance, but for us, with a lot of games in which theory does not exist, luck is a factor, undoubtely, for many games: you can lose in the opening, regardless you are a moderately solid player in many other games.