Highest rating achieved

I just had a really tough game that I enjoyed. It was against a oponent rated at the time in the 1600's. I was rated at the time 1404. After I win I noticed that in my statistics my highest win, is given as my oponents new rating, that is 1598 and not the rating he had when I played him. I would have thought that it should be the rating at which I beat him.

It does not really matter what rating is given the highest(before or after), but I would like to know why the one and not the other.

Because the latest rating is considered to be the most accurate one. It is based on more information, and is more recent.

I would consider it more accurate the other way around. The whole game, or at least the last part of the game you played against your aponent as if he has the higher rating. But the moment you mate or draw him you get the lower rating. But fortunately this does not subtrack the joy and satisfaction of the game. It is only statistical.

it would be much worse if it he was rate 2001 and it said you beat him at 1998

That would have suck.

the fact you could beat him suggests he wasnt that good after all (even if its only by a few points). It's not like he was a good player and later he became worse, but his playing strength most likely stayed the same and the rating was changed to get more accurate as ichabod says.

if there was a "lowest loss" record, you'd also prefer the after-game rating to be applied, cause if a 1200 points guy beat you you would say hey he wasnt really that bad.

makes sense to me...

Putting it that way make sense

It goes without saying.

Presumably the idea is that the rating pro-game is more accurate than the version beforehand.

I guess it's just tough having to play a 2020, and when you win you've only beaten a 1990......

I'm with you on this one

The pregame such as when the game first started, or the pregame such as just before you snatch the points away from him?

As when the game started, in my opinion.

Why would you choose the earlier rating based on less information and less recent information over the later rating?

Hate this myself. Worse is when the player is banned or leaves and times out and you get the scraps of his/her rating. Time outs, game wins should be calculated at the rating the game started with, period!

Something that I have noticed in my short time here, is that when you are in the middle of a turn-based game with someone, and they lose to someone else in the meantime, you can re-check the ratings details of the game you're playing with them and the amount of rating points you will win will decrease mid-game as the opponent's rating has shrunk (and the amount of points you will lose for being defeated increases as well).

I would think it should display the rating at which you beat them (pre-game rating), and not the rating they have now that after you have beat them (post-game rating), but as long as it is always uniform, I guess it doesn't particularly matter because it is the same for everyone.

It's nonsensical that it takes the post-game rating.

If you are playing someone rated 2000 with 10 wins, 5 draws and 5 losses, then you either win, lose, or draw with someone rated 2000 with 10 wins, 5 draws and 5 losses.

The highest win should clearly be 2000, as they weren't 1970 with 10w, 5d and 6l until after you'd beaten him. Saying it was 1970 is like saying you just beat someone with 10w, 5d, 6l, but that simply isn't how it went down. He only had 5l when you beat him.

It seems so self-evident, I can't see how people can disagree :/

It would be best to use the pre-finish rating, instead of the pre-game or after-finsh rating.

For eg: if I just lose my game which was started when my rating was 1200, and the before loss and after loss ratings are 2030 and 2000 then it would be best to use 2030.

You're comparing apples and oranges. A rating is not a win/loss record, it's an estimate of performance. The post game estimate is the most accurate one at the point in time which you beat him.