Has this site ever had TWO players over 2200??? (IronMan isn't quite there yet as I'm writing this, but he's pretty close, only two points off!) Let alone 15 players over 2100 and 9 players in the top 20 with less than 15 losses! I just wanted to point out how great it is for the site to be (for lack of a better word) sponsoring players of such calibur. Hopefully I'll somehow someway wittle my way up there one day. 😉
-Kev
there's 2 problems with this. We'll, they're not really problems but I think it makes the ratings innacurate for anything except comparing to other peoples current ratings. Because there is a constant flow of new people joining the site there is a constant influx of points available. Because of this everyones rating who is above average will slowly rise, which is why 2 years ago no one was over 1800 and now there are 87. Not that these people aren't playing fine chess, they are, but to say that we have 87 people here now who are better than the bests player we had 2 years ago is obviously wrong.
The second problem is that my rating is rising (very slowly), and I'm sure it's because I'm playing better chess, but the rate at which it's rising is slower than the rate at which the top of the board is rising, so in effect I'm getting worse 🙁
Originally posted by belgianfreakmy rating is going down down down.
there's 2 problems with this. We'll, they're not really problems but I think it makes the ratings innacurate for anything except comparing to other peoples current ratings. Because there is a constant flow of new people joining the site there is a constant influx of points available. Because of this everyones rating who is above average will slowly r ...[text shortened]... slower than the rate at which the top of the board is rising, so in effect I'm getting worse 🙁
Originally posted by belgianfreakTrue: but then there are good players who come on, 'suck up points' then leave (E.Dantes anyone?). We know from the stats Chrismo posted a while ago that the average rating is 1250 or so from a start point of 1200, which indicates that there has been very little drift (+50) of the total number points / total number players; certainly a lot less that the increase in the top players' ratings, some +400 or so.
... Because there is a constant flow of new people joining the site there is a constant influx of points available...
Secondly, as we often seem to try to equate OTB rankings and RHP, consider that exactly the same effect is present in OTB ranking schemes: players come and go, the points get moved, ceated, destroyed.
So why diss RHP ratings? Who's to say the top 87 aren't simply getting much better? I was scared as hell today reading a Skeeter post: in preparation for the next round of a tourny, there she was analysing all her games from the last round. And there was this undertone that, were my ranking high enough to warrent it (which it isn't), she'd be seeing what I did last time too... That level of preparation is awsome, plus of course, now that the mid to top players have played enough games, there is access to game histories of most other highish rated players: and with that history, the best out there will inevitably destroy the rest out there...
Originally posted by ToeThose are all excellent points. Espicially the one about anyone 1600+ being a top player, hehe. 😀 Go me.
True: but then there are good players who come on, 'suck up points' then leave (E.Dantes anyone?). We know from the stats Chrismo posted a while ago that the average rating is 1250 or so from a start point of 1200, which indicates that there has been very little drift (+50) of the total number points / total number players; certainly a lot less that the increa ...[text shortened]... players: and with that history, the best out there will inevitably destroy the rest out there...
-Kev