I assume the bigger the difference between your rating and your opponents effects the number of points gained or lost by winning or losing, but how is it calculated?
Affects.
https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-ratings---how-they-work
The Gliko system formula is shockingly complicated!
Complicated, but logically, it makes sense and is backed by rigorous mathematics.
Yes the theory makes sense and I trust that the math works, although I'm not going to work through the math to prove it to myself!
There's a simple ballpark calculation you can do for two players with established ratings that will approximate the exact calculation:
16 points for a win 0 for a draw, -16 for a loss.
For every 25 rating points difference up to 400 rating points, add/subtract 1 point.
So, let's say you are playing two games against someone rated 200 points higher than you.
You win the first one, therefore you gain 16 +8=24 rating points. Your opponent will lose 24 rating points.
You draw the second game (presuming for the moment that these are played as the same event). You gain 0 points for the draw, but 8 points for the rating differential. Scoring 1.5/2 against someone rated 200 points higher than you will earn about 32 rating points.
If you had lost that first game, you would have lost 8 points, then gained 8 points back with the draw. .5/2 would have scored 0 rating points. That's the score that we should expect in such a match.
The link provided by notmtwain gives the exact details, but the formula I provided is a good rough estimate for players with well established ratings less than 400 rating points apart.
That's not my experience. I'm in the 12s and playing others in the 12s I'm gaining only about 8 points for a win
That would be true if you're playing a ton of games. The Glicko system reduces the base number for people who are extremely active.
You can go to anyone's profile and look at their games and see their rating after each game. My last few games my rating went something like 1238. 1230. 1238. 1230, 1222, 1231. That's against players closely rated to myself. Since the rating change takes into account the RD, it would be hard to have a consistent rule of thumb, although my ratings changes are pretty consistent, and about half of what was posted above, so maybe that's the rule. 8 for a win, not 16. Might be different for 2 1800s palying each other.
No, you're probably right that this site uses 8 as the base score. The approximation I discussed is about 50 years old, and is just an approximation.
That would be true if you're playing a ton of games. The Glicko system reduces the base number for people who are extremely active.
I average around 2 games per day I think. Almost always rapid.
That's quite a bit. The 16 points per game was originally for one event per week, long before there was such a thing as Glicko.
The 16 points is known as 1/2 of the K-factor. The K-factor of 32 (the total points won or lost by both players in a single game) is still used as the default for players under 2100 in FIDE according to wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Most_accurate_K-factor
It does look like the K-factor here is 16 (+/-8 for each player +/- 8 for the rating differential)rather than 32 for players who are extremely active.
That's quite a bit. The 16 points per game was originally for one event per week, long before there was such a thing as Glicko.
If the rule of thumb is for ELO then it likely does not apply to Glicko. Glicko is a different method of rating. I looked at the formulas briefly from the link at the top of the thread, (actually, the link that is at the bottom of the page of the first link), and I don't think frequency of play is anywhere in any of the equations.
Take another look at Glicko, it's the rating system's raison d'être.
glicko takes into account the certainty of your rating which depends on how many games there are to use for data. That's different than how often you play. The same is true with the k factor for elo ratings according to the wiki you linked to.
Take another look at Glicko, it's the rating system's raison d'être.
Muy bien!
What chess.com is supposed to do is end giving zero scores for people or computers winning without arriving at the checkmate. So, in other words, if you are not winning by checkmate, why I am supposed to give you scores? Be winning by time is supposed to be another classification to win playing chess online, especially, when is so easy to do fraud in that way. Not merit winning by time. The same thing is if a baseball player never gives a home run or someone boxer never win by a knockout. What is winning on time on chess? Nothing. Now if you say to me, this person won because the time was over but took a horse extra or a peon more than its opponent, is it understandable. But, again, win only on time, disgraceful about chess.
Winning is winning. No difference in score whether win is by time, checkmate or resignation. If you don't like the time factor why do you only play blitz and bullet? Play longer time controls.
I assume the bigger the difference between your rating and your opponents effects the number of points gained or lost by winning or losing, but how is it calculated?