@PxJ said in #21:
> In this case "making it worse" would mean decreasing the rating volatility, or did I miss something?
By making it worse I mean increasing the pace at which the rating changes.
I'm not sure about what volatility means here.
Going back to read your comments on volatility I see that
> The basic postulate is that over a large number of games, fluctuation would average by the games results themselves, and hence the rating would be an accurate representation of the "true strength" of the player.
and then you go on to explain that the strength of the players tend to increase and the rating should keep up.
As much as I understand what you're saying, I disagree.
As I said before, rating measures performance. Performance, not strength.
The rating is not supposed to keep up, you are (in other words, to play up to your best it's not enough to be good you also have to play well). The rating will "accurately" measure your performance, regardless of whether you lost because you were not strong enough, or because your opponent had a good day, or you made a mouseslip, or you flagged, or you took a risk and didn't go well, or you didn't sleep well, ...
Increasing the rating increments will increase the ups and downs. But I don't see why that's desirable and I definitely don't see a reason for the rating having to go up or down faster than it currently goes.