• Mar-plij, eilit/pegit ar gemennadenn fazi a zo war ho skramm, ma zo unan.

I think the ELO system takes too many points sometimes from players in the 100 to 300 range when they play against higher ranked players. For example, my rating is around 400 right now; in my most recent game, my opponent entered with ELO of 135. When she lost, she was penalized 11 points of ELO while I gained about 4. It seems like she also should only lose 4, because a loss is natural under that circumstance. She should gain 11 or more if she beats me, and I should lose 11 or more if she beats me. In other words, the expected result should produce only a small change, while an unexpected result should produce a large change., and the two players should experience a change of similar size, I think. Why should the weaker player unfairly suffer more just for producing the expected result? (I've never seen how the formula works. If I'm missing the logic here, maybe post the ELO formula where it can be understood.)

By eye, it seems like sometimes the ELO penalizes the lower player too much, but sometimes it treats them fairly, as fairly is described above. Does the formula change from time to time by accident? If so, maybe the settings can be stabilized.

• Displegit deomp, mar-plij, ar pezh ho poa c'hoant d'ober, ar pezh ho peus graet hag ar pezh a zo c'hoarvezet 'benn ar fin

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Mar-plij, eilit/pegit an destenn e Saozneg ha n'eo ket en ho yezh. M'ho peus un dapadenn skramm eus ar gudenn (ho pezit soñj d'eus se !), gellout a rit implij Imgur.com evit e bellgargañ hag eilañ/pegañ al liamm amañ.

I think the ELO system takes too many points sometimes from players in the 100 to 300 range when they play against higher ranked players. For example, my rating is around 400 right now; in my most recent game, my opponent entered with ELO of 135. When she lost, she was penalized 11 points of ELO while I gained about 4. It seems like she also should only lose 4, because a loss is natural under that circumstance. She should gain 11 or more if she beats me, and I should lose 11 or more if she beats me. In other words, the expected result should produce only a small change, while an unexpected result should produce a large change., and the two players should experience a change of similar size, I think. Why should the weaker player unfairly suffer more just for producing the expected result? (I've never seen how the formula works. If I'm missing the logic here, maybe post the ELO formula where it can be understood.)

By eye, it seems like sometimes the ELO penalizes the lower player too much, but sometimes it treats them fairly, as fairly is described above. Does the formula change from time to time by accident? If so, maybe the settings can be stabilized.

• Ha dibres eo an destenn-mañ er sistem treiñ? Ma ya, daoust ha troet eo bet ouzhpenn 24 eur 'zo ?

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Displegit ho kinnig mar-plij, e berrgomzoù met en un doare resis, evit ma vefe an aesañ posupl kompren mat ar pezh ho peus c'hoant lâret.

I think the ELO system takes too many points sometimes from players in the 100 to 300 range when they play against higher ranked players. For example, my rating is around 400 right now; in my most recent game, my opponent entered with ELO of 135. When she lost, she was penalized 11 points of ELO while I gained about 4. It seems like she also should only lose 4, because a loss is natural under that circumstance. She should gain 11 or more if she beats me, and I should lose 11 or more if she beats me. In other words, the expected result should produce only a small change, while an unexpected result should produce a large change., and the two players should experience a change of similar size, I think. Why should the weaker player unfairly suffer more just for producing the expected result? (I've never seen how the formula works. If I'm missing the logic here, maybe post the ELO formula where it can be understood.)

By eye, it seems like sometimes the ELO penalizes the lower player too much, but sometimes it treats them fairly, as fairly is described above. Does the formula change from time to time by accident? If so, maybe the settings can be stabilized.

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Petra oa diskouezet war ar skramm pa 'z oc'h chomet stanket (Skramm goullo ? Ul lodenn eus etrefas ar c'hoari ? Kemennadenn fazi ?)

I think the ELO system takes too many points sometimes from players in the 100 to 300 range when they play against higher ranked players. For example, my rating is around 400 right now; in my most recent game, my opponent entered with ELO of 135. When she lost, she was penalized 11 points of ELO while I gained about 4. It seems like she also should only lose 4, because a loss is natural under that circumstance. She should gain 11 or more if she beats me, and I should lose 11 or more if she beats me. In other words, the expected result should produce only a small change, while an unexpected result should produce a large change., and the two players should experience a change of similar size, I think. Why should the weaker player unfairly suffer more just for producing the expected result? (I've never seen how the formula works. If I'm missing the logic here, maybe post the ELO formula where it can be understood.)

By eye, it seems like sometimes the ELO penalizes the lower player too much, but sometimes it treats them fairly, as fairly is described above. Does the formula change from time to time by accident? If so, maybe the settings can be stabilized.

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Pesseurt reolenn n'eo ket doujet gant azasadenn ar c'hoari-mañ ?

I think the ELO system takes too many points sometimes from players in the 100 to 300 range when they play against higher ranked players. For example, my rating is around 400 right now; in my most recent game, my opponent entered with ELO of 135. When she lost, she was penalized 11 points of ELO while I gained about 4. It seems like she also should only lose 4, because a loss is natural under that circumstance. She should gain 11 or more if she beats me, and I should lose 11 or more if she beats me. In other words, the expected result should produce only a small change, while an unexpected result should produce a large change., and the two players should experience a change of similar size, I think. Why should the weaker player unfairly suffer more just for producing the expected result? (I've never seen how the formula works. If I'm missing the logic here, maybe post the ELO formula where it can be understood.)

By eye, it seems like sometimes the ELO penalizes the lower player too much, but sometimes it treats them fairly, as fairly is described above. Does the formula change from time to time by accident? If so, maybe the settings can be stabilized.

• Ha posupl eo gwelet torridigezh ar reolenn e replay ar bartienn ? Ma 'z eo ya, da be niverenn taol ?

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Peseurt taol ho peus c'hoant c'hoari ?

I think the ELO system takes too many points sometimes from players in the 100 to 300 range when they play against higher ranked players. For example, my rating is around 400 right now; in my most recent game, my opponent entered with ELO of 135. When she lost, she was penalized 11 points of ELO while I gained about 4. It seems like she also should only lose 4, because a loss is natural under that circumstance. She should gain 11 or more if she beats me, and I should lose 11 or more if she beats me. In other words, the expected result should produce only a small change, while an unexpected result should produce a large change., and the two players should experience a change of similar size, I think. Why should the weaker player unfairly suffer more just for producing the expected result? (I've never seen how the formula works. If I'm missing the logic here, maybe post the ELO formula where it can be understood.)

By eye, it seems like sometimes the ELO penalizes the lower player too much, but sometimes it treats them fairly, as fairly is described above. Does the formula change from time to time by accident? If so, maybe the settings can be stabilized.

• Petra emaoc'h o klask ober evit delankañ an ober c'hoari-mañ ?

• What happened when you try to do this (error message, game status bar message, ...)?

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Da be bazenn ar bartienn eo en em gavet ar gudenn (petra oa testenn kemenn ar c'hoari) ?

I think the ELO system takes too many points sometimes from players in the 100 to 300 range when they play against higher ranked players. For example, my rating is around 400 right now; in my most recent game, my opponent entered with ELO of 135. When she lost, she was penalized 11 points of ELO while I gained about 4. It seems like she also should only lose 4, because a loss is natural under that circumstance. She should gain 11 or more if she beats me, and I should lose 11 or more if she beats me. In other words, the expected result should produce only a small change, while an unexpected result should produce a large change., and the two players should experience a change of similar size, I think. Why should the weaker player unfairly suffer more just for producing the expected result? (I've never seen how the formula works. If I'm missing the logic here, maybe post the ELO formula where it can be understood.)

By eye, it seems like sometimes the ELO penalizes the lower player too much, but sometimes it treats them fairly, as fairly is described above. Does the formula change from time to time by accident? If so, maybe the settings can be stabilized.

• What happened when you try to do a game action (error message, game status bar message, ...)?

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Mar-plij, diskrivit kudenn an diskwel. M'ho peus un dapadenn skramm eus ar gudenn (ho pezit soñj d'eus se !), gellout a rit implij Imgur.com evit e bellgargañ hag eilañ/pegañ al liamm amañ.

I think the ELO system takes too many points sometimes from players in the 100 to 300 range when they play against higher ranked players. For example, my rating is around 400 right now; in my most recent game, my opponent entered with ELO of 135. When she lost, she was penalized 11 points of ELO while I gained about 4. It seems like she also should only lose 4, because a loss is natural under that circumstance. She should gain 11 or more if she beats me, and I should lose 11 or more if she beats me. In other words, the expected result should produce only a small change, while an unexpected result should produce a large change., and the two players should experience a change of similar size, I think. Why should the weaker player unfairly suffer more just for producing the expected result? (I've never seen how the formula works. If I'm missing the logic here, maybe post the ELO formula where it can be understood.)

By eye, it seems like sometimes the ELO penalizes the lower player too much, but sometimes it treats them fairly, as fairly is described above. Does the formula change from time to time by accident? If so, maybe the settings can be stabilized.

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Mar-plij, eilit/pegit an destenn e Saozneg ha n'eo ket en ho yezh. M'ho peus un dapadenn skramm eus ar gudenn (ho pezit soñj d'eus se !), gellout a rit implij Imgur.com evit e bellgargañ hag eilañ/pegañ al liamm amañ.

I think the ELO system takes too many points sometimes from players in the 100 to 300 range when they play against higher ranked players. For example, my rating is around 400 right now; in my most recent game, my opponent entered with ELO of 135. When she lost, she was penalized 11 points of ELO while I gained about 4. It seems like she also should only lose 4, because a loss is natural under that circumstance. She should gain 11 or more if she beats me, and I should lose 11 or more if she beats me. In other words, the expected result should produce only a small change, while an unexpected result should produce a large change., and the two players should experience a change of similar size, I think. Why should the weaker player unfairly suffer more just for producing the expected result? (I've never seen how the formula works. If I'm missing the logic here, maybe post the ELO formula where it can be understood.)

By eye, it seems like sometimes the ELO penalizes the lower player too much, but sometimes it treats them fairly, as fairly is described above. Does the formula change from time to time by accident? If so, maybe the settings can be stabilized.

• Ha dibres eo an destenn-mañ er sistem treiñ? Ma ya, daoust ha troet eo bet ouzhpenn 24 eur 'zo ?

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Displegit ho kinnig mar-plij, e berrgomzoù met en un doare resis, evit ma vefe an aesañ posupl kompren mat ar pezh ho peus c'hoant lâret.

I think the ELO system takes too many points sometimes from players in the 100 to 300 range when they play against higher ranked players. For example, my rating is around 400 right now; in my most recent game, my opponent entered with ELO of 135. When she lost, she was penalized 11 points of ELO while I gained about 4. It seems like she also should only lose 4, because a loss is natural under that circumstance. She should gain 11 or more if she beats me, and I should lose 11 or more if she beats me. In other words, the expected result should produce only a small change, while an unexpected result should produce a large change., and the two players should experience a change of similar size, I think. Why should the weaker player unfairly suffer more just for producing the expected result? (I've never seen how the formula works. If I'm missing the logic here, maybe post the ELO formula where it can be understood.)

By eye, it seems like sometimes the ELO penalizes the lower player too much, but sometimes it treats them fairly, as fairly is described above. Does the formula change from time to time by accident? If so, maybe the settings can be stabilized.

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?