That's never happened to me, but I definitely can say that a "draw" is not a loss, so you shouldn't lose points for that. But to be fair, the other player is probably losing 130 points as well.
I would have said you should lose 200 points for stalemating against that much lower rated of a player.
yes,I agree, maybe I should have lost points , BUT not that many even though my opponent had a low rating.
50 points would have been good
Hello, just here to increase post count.
Again, this is a draw, and it's just like any other draw. If he stalemated you it would be a draw. You lost a lot of rating points because he had a very low rating and because you didn't play a lot of games. When you play a lot of games, you will lose less rating.
It's your fault you stalemated him. It's your responsibility to be careful not to stalemate your opponents. Not the rating system's.
Again, this is a draw, and it's just like any other draw. If he stalemated you it would be a draw. You lost a lot of rating points because he had a very low rating and because you didn't play a lot of games. When you play a lot of games, you will lose less rating.
It's your fault you stalemated him. It's your responsibility to be careful not to stalemate your opponents. Not the rating system's.
qkxwsm, find me one person in this thread that said that the rating system was at fault for the game ending in a stalemate. If you used logic instead of obtuse strawmen then you would validity of our complaints.
Alright, so the main issue is now about the number of points lost as indicated by #13 and #14, so the fact that you should lose points is no longer in dispute.
So now let me explain how Glicko-2 ratings work. When you start out, you are at 1500 with about a +/- 300, i.e. the system is barely confident that you are anywhere near 1500 rating, you could be anywhere between 1200 and 1800 and even it's not entirely confident about that.
So maybe you didn't notice, when you won your first match, your rating went WAY up! Like maybe 200 points so so! The next match you won or lost went up or down by a LOT of points as well, but not as many. If you win several games, as you climb up and up and play higher rated players and win, you will gain less and less points because it may be getting more confident. But then when you lose or draw against a much lower rated opponent, the system loses confidence again and you will LOSE a LOT of points.
After you play 100 games or so, you will not see such big gains or losses. I have about 100 games of classical variation and I don't see very big spikes anymore. I just lost against someone 200 rating less than me the other day and only lost 11 points. When I win against someone stronger, I get maybe 12 points. The system has become quite confident in my rating.
So what people are telling you is, the more games you play, the less points you're going to lose (and win) as the system becomes more and more confident of your rating. Eventually it tapers off. You just haven't given the database enough input for it to be confident yet and so you will continue to win/lose a LOT of points for several more games whether you win, lose, or draw. Once you've tapered off if you draw against someone your own level you'll probably gain or lose 0-2 points.
Make sense yet? If not, there's a wonderful topic that explains how it works in the FAQ. Cheers.
So now let me explain how Glicko-2 ratings work. When you start out, you are at 1500 with about a +/- 300, i.e. the system is barely confident that you are anywhere near 1500 rating, you could be anywhere between 1200 and 1800 and even it's not entirely confident about that.
So maybe you didn't notice, when you won your first match, your rating went WAY up! Like maybe 200 points so so! The next match you won or lost went up or down by a LOT of points as well, but not as many. If you win several games, as you climb up and up and play higher rated players and win, you will gain less and less points because it may be getting more confident. But then when you lose or draw against a much lower rated opponent, the system loses confidence again and you will LOSE a LOT of points.
After you play 100 games or so, you will not see such big gains or losses. I have about 100 games of classical variation and I don't see very big spikes anymore. I just lost against someone 200 rating less than me the other day and only lost 11 points. When I win against someone stronger, I get maybe 12 points. The system has become quite confident in my rating.
So what people are telling you is, the more games you play, the less points you're going to lose (and win) as the system becomes more and more confident of your rating. Eventually it tapers off. You just haven't given the database enough input for it to be confident yet and so you will continue to win/lose a LOT of points for several more games whether you win, lose, or draw. Once you've tapered off if you draw against someone your own level you'll probably gain or lose 0-2 points.
Make sense yet? If not, there's a wonderful topic that explains how it works in the FAQ. Cheers.
First, the original poster lost some rating because he got a stalemate, or a draw, against a lower-rated player. Although the OP might not think this at first, but delivering stalemate is a draw that is no better than a draw that could have occurred if his/her opponent delivered stalemate on him. Since this stalemate was against a lower-rated player, the OP should lose rating points.
Onto why the OP should lose a lot of rating points?
"You lost a lot of rating points because he had a very low rating and because you didn't play a lot of games. When you play a lot of games, you will lose less rating."
Adding on to this, this is caused by Rating Deviation, where your rating will fluctuate a lot when you have played less games and will stop fluctuating so much when you have played more games. This is explained by Fenris1066 in posts 17 and the FAQ topic mentioned in post 18.
This explains why the OP lost a lot of rating.
Now note that this "problem" can simply be fixed by playing a lot of games: as more games are played, the Rating Deviation goes down, and you won't lose a lot of rating points from getting such a draw.
The last three sentences were there to poke some humor into the fact that the OP seemed to believe that a stalemate was a result that was somewhat better than other draws.
Onto why the OP should lose a lot of rating points?
"You lost a lot of rating points because he had a very low rating and because you didn't play a lot of games. When you play a lot of games, you will lose less rating."
Adding on to this, this is caused by Rating Deviation, where your rating will fluctuate a lot when you have played less games and will stop fluctuating so much when you have played more games. This is explained by Fenris1066 in posts 17 and the FAQ topic mentioned in post 18.
This explains why the OP lost a lot of rating.
Now note that this "problem" can simply be fixed by playing a lot of games: as more games are played, the Rating Deviation goes down, and you won't lose a lot of rating points from getting such a draw.
The last three sentences were there to poke some humor into the fact that the OP seemed to believe that a stalemate was a result that was somewhat better than other draws.
Just to reiterate:
If you don't want to lose so many points for stalemate, just play a lot of games! Slowly, you'll lose less and less rating points per loss/ per draw vs weaker player.
If you don't want to lose so many points for stalemate, just play a lot of games! Slowly, you'll lose less and less rating points per loss/ per draw vs weaker player.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.