[Grandpa Kim]

Are you actually trying to say that winning a 20 person game is 19 times harder to do then winning a 2 person game?

Yes, Geo, that is exactly what I'm saying. And vice versa. Are you saying that if you have a 50% chance of winning a one on one game, you have a better than 5% chance of winning a 20 player game?

Why should I get the same amount of points in a large game simply for outLasting Primitve, when we never met and I had no involvment in beating him at all,

Simply because you did outLast him! Either diplomatically or militarily or in some other way you were better. I feel you do deserve the full measure of points.

On the other hand why should the guy who finished second, beating out 18! count 'em, 18 other players get so much less than the winner? The power struggle at the end may well have been a close thing. The final result may have been decided by luck.

Unfortunatley we don't know all the factors. Was it a no-contest and the winner really should get all the points while all the others lose points, or was it anybody's game right to the end and even the first man out should have received some points for his outstanding effort? The fact is we just don't know and, after all, the rating system is all about winning and losing not about how hard it was.

Now apology time. I was incorrect in saying there is inflation in Geoschmo's system. I have no excuse for missing this fact and apologize, especially to Geoschmo as well as any others I may have offended.

FIDE: Federation Internationale de Echecs (any of our French speaking contributors feel free to correct my spelling)

Or in english, The International Federation of Chess.

FIDE uses the rating system upon which our own SEIV rating system is based. This system is so good you can accurately compare yourself to someone long dead... as long as you both have (had) a rating. Ratings range from about 2900 for a world champion to about 500 for a tyro who continually loses. The average is somewhere around 1500. A typical Master would be around 2200 points, a Grandmaster 2500.

Some years ago, if memory serves, the whole system (or was it just Canada?) had an adjustment because of deflation! This happens because people stop playing but while playing they got better and gained rating points. When they quit or died, those points were lost to the general pool ergo the deflation.

Now, back to Geo's system. Not inflation, not deflation, but stagflation. Geo's idea tends to keep Ratings bunched close together. (I for one am disappointed how closely bunched the Ratings still are. I fully expected someone to have achieved 1500 points by now.) It also makes playing rated multiplayer less attractive. No matter how well or poorly you do, there won't be much change. Why bother? After playing for a year and winning, you find you gained 18 points! Well whoopdedoo! Think I'll stick with KOTH!

I still can't see any good reason to fiddle with the Ratings in multiplayer.