The weighting of previous matches digresses linearly from 100% for just-finished matches to zero for matches conducted more than two years ago.
Weighting of past tournaments (age in months):
In 2006 economists Charles C. Moul and John V. C. Nye used Chessmetrics to determine the "expected" results of games, and wrote, "Ratings in chess that make use of rigorous statistics to produce good estimates of relative player strength are now relatively common, but comparing ratings across different time periods is often complicated by idiosyncratic changes (cf. Elo, 1968 for the pioneering discussion). Sonas uses the same rating formula throughout our sample and updates this rating monthly instead of annually, as is more common. Moreover, retrospective grading allows him to establish rankings that are unbiased estimates of the “true” relative strengths of players."
Jeff Sonas, Chessmetrics' author, repeatedly emphasises the importance of a rating system's ability to "predict" results (during testing the results to be "predicted" are those of past games whose outcomes are known to the tester).
Sonas also claims that Chessmetrics has other advantages over Elo ratings:
Chessmetrics occasionally gives strange looking results. For instance, World Chess Champion Emanuel Lasker was inactive for much of 1912-1914, and as a consequence dropped from #1 to #12 in the world in the Chessmetrics rankings, just before his famous victory ahead of all the world's other leading players at the 1914 Saint Petersburg chess tournament.
Chessmetrics, like any other ratings system, can only be used as a guide.
Respected chess author John L. Watson has referred to Chessmetrics numbers., and Chessmetrics has been cited in at least two academic papers.