Ratings Poll.

[Yeah]

Wich rating do you find more fair?
The Kleier where you cant loose much or the
WCS where you must win much?

[faithless]

The Kleier-Rating is definitely nearer to the truth and more accurate. Even if I am better ranked on WSC, there are many well-known names which aren´t on the place they deserve to be - on Kleier they are. For me, there is no question which one is better and there is a reason why the ISF choosed the Kleier-Rating for the world-rankings.
But especially the 2004 Kleier-Rating shows two points which have to be corrected in the future.
First: I don´t think that someone deserves to be on place one by just playing three top 30 players in all his games. He should have a good ranking for good playing and many wins, but, just in my view, you have to proof your strength against good players more often.
Second: The 2004 Ranking also shows that many people have become better players in the last weeks, but if they played many games in 2003, their overall ranking won´t change much. There is a discrepancy of, sometimes, a few hundred points. So what is the players real strength?
I think it should be based more on his actual results.

Greetings!

Faithless

[Guest]

Agree with Faithless.

Check out the opponents of JvG [in the all-time-resultlist of Kleier]
He only got a win % of 48 but he played only against players with + 1500 rating points. (except 3 games or so..)

Think this is better then win 100 games of players with 1100 - 1300 points

[Gaius_Marius]

WSC is the greatest system ever created and the Kleir system - eggs!

Ty

[faithless]

interesting point.
I´ve never seen it from this point of view.