A change in ratings. Shouldn't a player winning at least one game against another player with a 3-400 higher score be rewarded?
I'm asking if it's possible to apply the differential of awarded points...more for weaker player for taking an entire set, less for the stronger player...to each game in the set.
That sounds reasonable, but I don't know how to make that fair.
As I understand it, rated games are played in sets because of a (perceived and probable) advantage for player 1. The fix to that advantage is to make players play as player 1 and player 2, and force a ratings change when both games are won/lost.
Given that advantage, if you still wanted to award points for winning 1 game, I think you'd have to differentiate between player 1 and 2, and then begs the question, how and how much do you differentiate? I don't see an easy answer to that.
At first glance, it seems that the answer would complicate rating calculations quite a bit and I like to keep things as simple as possible.
Another thought that comes to mind is that, with such a rule, I imagine people become less inclined to play lower ranked players because they'd stand to lose more from a draw. That's something I'd want to avoid.
I believe rating changes already have incorporated that a lower ranked player stands to lose less on a loss than they can gain with a win, and a higher ranked player can win less than they stand to lose by playing a lower ranked player.
In addition, changing the way ratings are calculated now implies, to me at least, that I should reset everyone's ratings because it seems meaningless to use the results of previous calculations as the base for a new formula.
I'm not inclined to change the rating system, I'd need a very convincing argument for that.
