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

The existing ELO calculation after a win (or loss) treats the result as a win (loss) against each of the opponents, **and a tie with the player's partner**. That means that if you are paired with a weak player, ot only is winning more challenging (which is fine, luck of the draw) but also your ELO is docked because of partner's weakness.
As an extreme example, say a 600 is paired with a 20 ELO, playing against a couple of 310 ELO opponents, and everybody has K=20. If the 600/20 team wins, the 600 gains about 4 points against each opponent, and ties his partner, which is about (-18+2)/2 = -9 ELO points. The sum is -1, so the expert player, having beaten a couple of strong players despite being paired with a beginner, would *lose* about half an ELO point. Since the odds of winning, based on linear approximation using the combined ELO's, were about 50%, that expert (and his partner) should have gained 10 points.
The best solution is to treat the game as a two-player game, using the pair-averaged ELO rating for each pair to determine the effective ELO. If that is awkward within the overall BGA framework, then at least the system should not be indicating a tie against your partner.

• 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.

The existing ELO calculation after a win (or loss) treats the result as a win (loss) against each of the opponents, **and a tie with the player's partner**. That means that if you are paired with a weak player, ot only is winning more challenging (which is fine, luck of the draw) but also your ELO is docked because of partner's weakness.
As an extreme example, say a 600 is paired with a 20 ELO, playing against a couple of 310 ELO opponents, and everybody has K=20. If the 600/20 team wins, the 600 gains about 4 points against each opponent, and ties his partner, which is about (-18+2)/2 = -9 ELO points. The sum is -1, so the expert player, having beaten a couple of strong players despite being paired with a beginner, would *lose* about half an ELO point. Since the odds of winning, based on linear approximation using the combined ELO's, were about 50%, that expert (and his partner) should have gained 10 points.
The best solution is to treat the game as a two-player game, using the pair-averaged ELO rating for each pair to determine the effective ELO. If that is awkward within the overall BGA framework, then at least the system should not be indicating a tie against your partner.

• 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.

The existing ELO calculation after a win (or loss) treats the result as a win (loss) against each of the opponents, **and a tie with the player's partner**. That means that if you are paired with a weak player, ot only is winning more challenging (which is fine, luck of the draw) but also your ELO is docked because of partner's weakness.
As an extreme example, say a 600 is paired with a 20 ELO, playing against a couple of 310 ELO opponents, and everybody has K=20. If the 600/20 team wins, the 600 gains about 4 points against each opponent, and ties his partner, which is about (-18+2)/2 = -9 ELO points. The sum is -1, so the expert player, having beaten a couple of strong players despite being paired with a beginner, would *lose* about half an ELO point. Since the odds of winning, based on linear approximation using the combined ELO's, were about 50%, that expert (and his partner) should have gained 10 points.
The best solution is to treat the game as a two-player game, using the pair-averaged ELO rating for each pair to determine the effective ELO. If that is awkward within the overall BGA framework, then at least the system should not be indicating a tie against your partner.

• 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 ?)

The existing ELO calculation after a win (or loss) treats the result as a win (loss) against each of the opponents, **and a tie with the player's partner**. That means that if you are paired with a weak player, ot only is winning more challenging (which is fine, luck of the draw) but also your ELO is docked because of partner's weakness.
As an extreme example, say a 600 is paired with a 20 ELO, playing against a couple of 310 ELO opponents, and everybody has K=20. If the 600/20 team wins, the 600 gains about 4 points against each opponent, and ties his partner, which is about (-18+2)/2 = -9 ELO points. The sum is -1, so the expert player, having beaten a couple of strong players despite being paired with a beginner, would *lose* about half an ELO point. Since the odds of winning, based on linear approximation using the combined ELO's, were about 50%, that expert (and his partner) should have gained 10 points.
The best solution is to treat the game as a two-player game, using the pair-averaged ELO rating for each pair to determine the effective ELO. If that is awkward within the overall BGA framework, then at least the system should not be indicating a tie against your partner.

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

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

The existing ELO calculation after a win (or loss) treats the result as a win (loss) against each of the opponents, **and a tie with the player's partner**. That means that if you are paired with a weak player, ot only is winning more challenging (which is fine, luck of the draw) but also your ELO is docked because of partner's weakness.
As an extreme example, say a 600 is paired with a 20 ELO, playing against a couple of 310 ELO opponents, and everybody has K=20. If the 600/20 team wins, the 600 gains about 4 points against each opponent, and ties his partner, which is about (-18+2)/2 = -9 ELO points. The sum is -1, so the expert player, having beaten a couple of strong players despite being paired with a beginner, would *lose* about half an ELO point. Since the odds of winning, based on linear approximation using the combined ELO's, were about 50%, that expert (and his partner) should have gained 10 points.
The best solution is to treat the game as a two-player game, using the pair-averaged ELO rating for each pair to determine the effective ELO. If that is awkward within the overall BGA framework, then at least the system should not be indicating a tie against your partner.

• 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 ?

The existing ELO calculation after a win (or loss) treats the result as a win (loss) against each of the opponents, **and a tie with the player's partner**. That means that if you are paired with a weak player, ot only is winning more challenging (which is fine, luck of the draw) but also your ELO is docked because of partner's weakness.
As an extreme example, say a 600 is paired with a 20 ELO, playing against a couple of 310 ELO opponents, and everybody has K=20. If the 600/20 team wins, the 600 gains about 4 points against each opponent, and ties his partner, which is about (-18+2)/2 = -9 ELO points. The sum is -1, so the expert player, having beaten a couple of strong players despite being paired with a beginner, would *lose* about half an ELO point. Since the odds of winning, based on linear approximation using the combined ELO's, were about 50%, that expert (and his partner) should have gained 10 points.
The best solution is to treat the game as a two-player game, using the pair-averaged ELO rating for each pair to determine the effective ELO. If that is awkward within the overall BGA framework, then at least the system should not be indicating a tie against your partner.

• 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) ?

The existing ELO calculation after a win (or loss) treats the result as a win (loss) against each of the opponents, **and a tie with the player's partner**. That means that if you are paired with a weak player, ot only is winning more challenging (which is fine, luck of the draw) but also your ELO is docked because of partner's weakness.
As an extreme example, say a 600 is paired with a 20 ELO, playing against a couple of 310 ELO opponents, and everybody has K=20. If the 600/20 team wins, the 600 gains about 4 points against each opponent, and ties his partner, which is about (-18+2)/2 = -9 ELO points. The sum is -1, so the expert player, having beaten a couple of strong players despite being paired with a beginner, would *lose* about half an ELO point. Since the odds of winning, based on linear approximation using the combined ELO's, were about 50%, that expert (and his partner) should have gained 10 points.
The best solution is to treat the game as a two-player game, using the pair-averaged ELO rating for each pair to determine the effective ELO. If that is awkward within the overall BGA framework, then at least the system should not be indicating a tie against your partner.

• 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.

The existing ELO calculation after a win (or loss) treats the result as a win (loss) against each of the opponents, **and a tie with the player's partner**. That means that if you are paired with a weak player, ot only is winning more challenging (which is fine, luck of the draw) but also your ELO is docked because of partner's weakness.
As an extreme example, say a 600 is paired with a 20 ELO, playing against a couple of 310 ELO opponents, and everybody has K=20. If the 600/20 team wins, the 600 gains about 4 points against each opponent, and ties his partner, which is about (-18+2)/2 = -9 ELO points. The sum is -1, so the expert player, having beaten a couple of strong players despite being paired with a beginner, would *lose* about half an ELO point. Since the odds of winning, based on linear approximation using the combined ELO's, were about 50%, that expert (and his partner) should have gained 10 points.
The best solution is to treat the game as a two-player game, using the pair-averaged ELO rating for each pair to determine the effective ELO. If that is awkward within the overall BGA framework, then at least the system should not be indicating a tie against your partner.

• 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.

The existing ELO calculation after a win (or loss) treats the result as a win (loss) against each of the opponents, **and a tie with the player's partner**. That means that if you are paired with a weak player, ot only is winning more challenging (which is fine, luck of the draw) but also your ELO is docked because of partner's weakness.
As an extreme example, say a 600 is paired with a 20 ELO, playing against a couple of 310 ELO opponents, and everybody has K=20. If the 600/20 team wins, the 600 gains about 4 points against each opponent, and ties his partner, which is about (-18+2)/2 = -9 ELO points. The sum is -1, so the expert player, having beaten a couple of strong players despite being paired with a beginner, would *lose* about half an ELO point. Since the odds of winning, based on linear approximation using the combined ELO's, were about 50%, that expert (and his partner) should have gained 10 points.
The best solution is to treat the game as a two-player game, using the pair-averaged ELO rating for each pair to determine the effective ELO. If that is awkward within the overall BGA framework, then at least the system should not be indicating a tie against your partner.

• 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.

The existing ELO calculation after a win (or loss) treats the result as a win (loss) against each of the opponents, **and a tie with the player's partner**. That means that if you are paired with a weak player, ot only is winning more challenging (which is fine, luck of the draw) but also your ELO is docked because of partner's weakness.
As an extreme example, say a 600 is paired with a 20 ELO, playing against a couple of 310 ELO opponents, and everybody has K=20. If the 600/20 team wins, the 600 gains about 4 points against each opponent, and ties his partner, which is about (-18+2)/2 = -9 ELO points. The sum is -1, so the expert player, having beaten a couple of strong players despite being paired with a beginner, would *lose* about half an ELO point. Since the odds of winning, based on linear approximation using the combined ELO's, were about 50%, that expert (and his partner) should have gained 10 points.
The best solution is to treat the game as a two-player game, using the pair-averaged ELO rating for each pair to determine the effective ELO. If that is awkward within the overall BGA framework, then at least the system should not be indicating a tie against your partner.

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?