The achievement of this title is unique in that no other recognized USCF title will result in a new floor. Pairwise comparisons form the basis of the Elo rating methodology. Performance is not measured absolutely; it is inferred from wins, losses, and draws against other players.

Players' ratings depend on the ratings of their opponents and the results scored against them. The difference in rating between two players determines an estimate for the expected score between them. Both the average and the spread of ratings can be arbitrarily chosen.

## Elo rating system

Elo suggested scaling ratings so that a difference of rating points in chess would mean that the stronger player has an expected score which basically is an expected average score of approximately 0. A player's expected score is their probability of winning plus half their probability of drawing. Thus, an expected score of 0. The probability of drawing, as opposed to having a decisive result, is not specified in the Elo system. Instead, a draw is considered half a win and half a loss. Note that in the latter case, the same denominator applies to both expressions.

It then follows that for each rating points of advantage over the opponent, the expected score is magnified ten times in comparison to the opponent's expected score. In practice, since the true strength of each player is unknown, the expected scores are calculated using the player's current ratings. When a player's actual tournament scores exceed their expected scores, the Elo system takes this as evidence that player's rating is too low, and needs to be adjusted upward.

Similarly, when a player's actual tournament scores fall short of their expected scores, that player's rating is adjusted downward. Elo's original suggestion, which is still widely used, was a simple linear adjustment proportional to the amount by which a player overperformed or underperformed their expected score. The formula for updating that player's rating is.

This update can be performed after each game or each tournament, or after any suitable rating period. An example may help clarify. Suppose Player A has a rating of and plays in a five-round tournament. He loses to a player rated , draws with a player rated , defeats a player rated , defeats a player rated , and loses to a player rated The expected score, calculated according to the formula above, was 0. Note that while two wins, two losses, and one draw may seem like a par score, it is worse than expected for Player A because their opponents were lower rated on average. Therefore, Player A is slightly penalized.

New players are assigned provisional ratings, which are adjusted more drastically than established ratings. The principles used in these rating systems can be used for rating other competitions—for instance, international football matches. See Go rating with Elo for more. There are three main mathematical concerns relating to the original work of Elo, namely the correct curve, the correct K-factor, and the provisional period crude calculations.

The first mathematical concern addressed by the USCF was the use of the normal distribution. They found that this did not accurately represent the actual results achieved, particularly by the lower rated players. Instead they switched to a logistic distribution model, which the USCF found provided a better fit for the actual results achieved. FIDE also uses an approximation to the logistic distribution. The second major concern is the correct "K-factor" used.

If the K-factor coefficient is set too large, there will be too much sensitivity to just a few, recent events, in terms of a large number of points exchanged in each game.

## The 'perfect matchmaking formula' for online dating has finally been discovered

Too low a K-value, and the sensitivity will be minimal, and the system will not respond quickly enough to changes in a player's actual level of performance. Elo's original K-factor estimation was made without the benefit of huge databases and statistical evidence. Sonas indicates that a K-factor of 24 for players rated above may be more accurate both as a predictive tool of future performance, and also more sensitive to performance.

Certain Internet chess sites seem to avoid a three-level K-factor staggering based on rating range. The USCF which makes use of a logistic distribution as opposed to a normal distribution has staggered the K-factor according to three main rating ranges of:. FIDE uses the following ranges: FIDE used the following ranges before July The gradation of the K-factor reduces ratings changes at the top end of the rating spectrum, reducing the possibility for rapid ratings inflation or deflation for those with a low K factor.

This might in theory apply equally to an online chess site or over-the-board players, since it is more difficult for players to get much higher ratings when their K-factor is reduced. In some cases the rating system can discourage game activity for players who wish to protect their rating. Beyond the chess world, concerns over players avoiding competitive play to protect their ratings caused Wizards of the Coast to abandon the Elo system for Magic: Some videogames that utilize the Elo system— League of Legends , for example—enforce players to keep up their activity by having their rating decay if a certain quota of activity is not fulfilled.

A more subtle issue is related to pairing. When players can choose their own opponents, they can choose opponents with minimal risk of losing, and maximum reward for winning. In the category of choosing overrated opponents, new entrants to the rating system who have played fewer than 50 games are in theory a convenient target as they may be overrated in their provisional rating.

The ICC compensates for this issue by assigning a lower K-factor to the established player if they do win against a new rating entrant. The K-factor is actually a function of the number of rated games played by the new entrant. Therefore, Elo ratings online still provide a useful mechanism for providing a rating based on the opponent's rating. Its overall credibility, however, needs to be seen in the context of at least the above two major issues described — engine abuse, and selective pairing of opponents.

The ICC has also recently introduced "auto-pairing" ratings which are based on random pairings, but with each win in a row ensuring a statistically much harder opponent who has also won x games in a row. With potentially hundreds of players involved, this creates some of the challenges of a major large Swiss event which is being fiercely contested, with round winners meeting round winners.

This approach to pairing certainly maximizes the rating risk of the higher-rated participants, who may face very stiff opposition from players below , for example. This is a separate rating in itself, and is under "1-minute" and "5-minute" rating categories. Maximum ratings achieved over are exceptionally rare. An increase or decrease in the average rating over all players in the rating system is often referred to as rating inflation or rating deflation respectively.

For example, if there is inflation, a modern rating of means less than a historical rating of , while the reverse is true if there is deflation. Using ratings to compare players between different eras is made more difficult when inflation or deflation are present. See also Comparison of top chess players throughout history. It is commonly believed that, at least at the top level, modern ratings are inflated.

For instance Nigel Short said in September , "The recent ChessBase article on rating inflation by Jeff Sonas would suggest that my rating in the late s would be approximately equivalent to in today's much debauched currency". When he made this comment, would have ranked him 65th, while would have ranked him equal 10th. In the September FIDE rating list, would have ranked him equal 86th, while would have ranked him 13th.

It has been suggested that an overall increase in ratings reflects greater skill. The advent of strong chess computers allows a somewhat objective evaluation of the absolute playing skill of past chess masters, based on their recorded games, but this is also a measure of how computerlike the players' moves are, not merely a measure of how strongly they have played.

The number of people with ratings over has increased. Around there was only one active player Anatoly Karpov with a rating this high. In Viswanathan Anand was only the 8th player in chess history to reach the mark at that point of time. The current benchmark for elite players lies beyond One possible cause for this inflation was the rating floor, which for a long time was at , and if a player dropped below this they were stricken from the rating list.

As a consequence, players at a skill level just below the floor would only be on the rating list if they were overrated, and this would cause them to feed points into the rating pool. By July it had increased to In a pure Elo system, each game ends in an equal transaction of rating points.

If the winner gains N rating points, the loser will drop by N rating points. This prevents points from entering or leaving the system when games are played and rated. However, players tend to enter the system as novices with a low rating and retire from the system as experienced players with a high rating. Therefore, in the long run a system with strictly equal transactions tends to result in rating deflation. If no match can be created, these players will be put at the end of the queue to ensure other players have a chance at a match customized for them.

While this may seem unfair at first, this has actually been shown to decrease wait times for all players.

## PvP Matchmaking Algorithm - Guild Wars 2 Wiki (GW2W)

The first phase, called filtering, gathers players based on their current MMR. The primary purpose of this phase is to both reduce the number of players being considered for a match, and to ensure that the match is appropriate given each player's skill level. Over time, padding is added to your player rating.

While this may decrease match quality, it helps ensure that outliers still receive matches. The second phase of the algorithm is the scoring phase. During this phase each player is scored against every other player being considered for matchmaking. The metrics used during this phase include: With each metric the system is looking for players that are as close as possible to the average of those already selected.

The system also attempts to keep the number of duplicate professions to a minimum. A new matchmaker has been written to solve some of the failings of the previous while maintaining a similar flow. This new matcher will score rosters against both teams and the entire match instead of only considering alternating target teams. This is most notable when scoring ratings as a roster's fit is based on how it will balance team ratings instead of just how close it is to the target team's rating.

One additional scoring parameter includes a bonus for balancing profession counts. Dishonor is one of the methods used to encourage good sportsmanship. Behavior is tracked in the medium to long range through stacks. Each stack represents a duration that decays over time. Every time you receive dishonor you also receive a timeout. The length of a timeout increases exponentially based on how many stacks you currently have.

In other words, your first offense may yield a short timeout, while your 20th may keep you from playing for a much longer amount of time. While in timeout, you may not participate in ranked or unranked arena, but you can still play in custom arenas. Dishonor also impacts matchmaking by preferring to place you with other players that also have dishonor.

This isn't a separate queue, but merely a suggestion to the matchmaking system. It's possible to have stacks of dishonor without having an active timeout because dishonor decays at a much slower rate.

### Other interesting sites

The ladder is a list of all players currently participating in competitive play. Your ladder ranking is determined by how many points you are awarded throughout a season. You are awarded points for playing well, and often, and sometimes even if you lose a game. Friday, 06 December, , 8: Friday, 06 December, , 9: More on this story. China Insider A new app for Chinese netizens recovering from failed love: World People who met online may have happier marriages, says US survey 5 Jun You are signed up.

We think you'd also like. Thank you You are on the list. Most Popular Viewed 1. Love for Western classical music continues to rise in China. A new line-up and a star conductor: HK Phil turns How 10 Asian shopkeepers took on the Sicilian mafia in Palermo.