Originally posted by rookie54Another ratio that's quite interesting (involving non-losses versus losses in chess)
this sort of analysis could be valuable...
for instance, give us the ratio of tony hayward's (work on oil spill/play time) breakdown and let's see if this guy, as opposed to any regular mook onna chess website, haz any sort of efficiency...
or, obama...
or, bunning...
or, southwest airlines...
or, or, or,
'fantastic' may be a bit extreme a ...[text shortened]... riptor...
but, what you find interesting IS sort of interesting, inna perverse way...
rookie
is simply win % + draw % = non-loss % divided by loss %. Draws are valuable.
..........................................................
2 edits
Originally posted by ChessPraxisAnd a whole non-loss point (win or draw) represents a swing of two % points versus a loss point on RHP. Tomorrow morning I'll deliver to Greenpawn's love of meaningful stats and conclude the conversation... which isn't about either chess or chat but, rather, about freedom of choice and the manner in which this site accomodates our individual preferences.
One half of a point is better than a goose egg.
.................................................................
Originally posted by Grampy Bobbyi might be guessing wrong, but, gee whiz, grampy, you wave a flag for this joint like it wuz tha dang ole constitution of tha new united status of demarco...
And a whole non-loss point (win or draw) represents a swing of two points versus a loss point on RHP. Tomorrow morning I'll deliver to Greenpawn's love of meaningful stats and conclude the conversation... which isn't about either chess or chat but, rather, about freedom of choice and the manner in which this site accomodates our individual preferences.
.................................................................
itz a freakin website...
folks cuss at each other, politely...
they play chess against each other, viciously...
but,
at the end of the day,
itz just a website...
there are times you make it sound like itz yer mistress or something...
whew...
rookie
2 edits
Originally posted by rookie54Since a child I've learned to take my toys, books, clothes, food and other things; places private and public, near and far that mattered; family members, classmates, friends seriously (not solemnly) because I valued them all and still do. There may very well come a day when I no longer care... but right now I care about Red Hot Pawn and I care intensely.
i might be guessing wrong, but, gee whiz, grampy, you wave a flag for this joint like it wuz tha dang ole constitution of tha new united status of demarco...
itz a freakin website...
folks cuss at each other, politely...
they play chess against each other, viciously...
but,
at the end of the day,
itz just a website...
there are times you make it sound like itz yer mistress or something...
whew...
rookie
.................................................................................
2 edits
Originally posted by greenpawn34GP... another ratio that's quite interesting (involving non-losses versus losses in chess)
Gosh Gramps, You have to get yourself out more.
I love stats like this....
is simply win % + draw % = non-loss % divided by loss %. Draws are valuable.
* Greenpawn34: 76% + 17% = 93% divided by 7% = 13.3 non-loss/loss ratio
* ChessPraxis: 83 + 2 = 85 divided by 15 = 5.7
* Grampy Bobby: 55 + 25 = 80 divided by 20 = 4.0
* Trev33: 53 + 18 = 71 divided by 29 = 2.4
* Very Rusty: 58 + 7 = 65 divided by 35 = 1.9
* Phlabibit: 57 + 4 = 61 divided by 39 = 1.6
* Darvlay: 50 + 4 = 54 divided by 46 = 1.2
* Coquette: 46 + 7 = 53 divided by 47 = 1.1
* Duecer: 40 + 5 = 45 divided by 55 = .8
* Frank Burns: 31 + 1 = 32 divided by 68 = .5
Note: Rated Game Win, Draw, Loss Percentages from 27 July '10 RHP Profile Stats.
....................................................................................
That is a good stat however into it you must add the realative
strength of the opponents you play.
This info is also given in the players profile.
I have a nice % of wins then you see my ave is v 1470.
My style is not designed for C.C. good players don't and
won't fall for my wee traps. So I don't play them.
OTB I play the same style against GM's, IM's and No M's.
My ability to spot tactics and play fast...
(I've played over 1,000 OTB games and never lost on time. Never.)
....Has helped me spin more than a few lost positions into won postions.
Here that skill is defunct.
Losing a game because of time trouble is a pathetic excuse.
Your clock is your 17th piece.
But Gramps has got me talking Chess in the General Forum again
and I do so wish and try fit in on here. I sometimes get awfully lonely
in the Chess Forum so I flick onto here and see all the fun you
lads are up to. I wish I belonged.
I even tried freezing nuts in the fridge like the rest of you but Mrs GP
went bonkers and said I was not to play with you guys anymore.
Originally posted by greenpawn34😀
That is a good stat however into it you must add the realative
strength of the opponents you play.
This info is also given in the players profile.
I have a nice % of wins then you see my ave is v 1470.
My style is not designed for C.C. good players don't and
won't fall for my wee traps. So I don't play them.
OTB I play the same style against ...[text shortened]... he rest of you but Mrs GP
went bonkers and said I was not to play with you guys anymore.
You are indeed a Nut Case!
I can't see how you don't feel like you belong. 😛
Originally posted by greenpawn34Critical dimension. Totally agree! Did give it some thought, only to realize that any
That is a good stat however into it you must add the realative
strength of the opponents you play.
equation or formula would stand or fall depending on the validity of the weighting.
.............................................................
Originally posted by Grampy Bobbyhere's an interesting way to amend your stats
GP... another ratio that's quite interesting (involving non-losses versus losses in chess)
is simply [b]win % + draw % = non-loss % divided by loss %. Draws are valuable.
* Greenpawn34: 76% + 17% = 93% divided by 7% = 13.3 non-loss/loss ratio
* ChessPraxis: 83 + 2 = 85 divided by 15 = 5.7
* Grampy Bobby: 55 + 25 = 80 divided by 20 ...[text shortened]... ats.
....................................................................................[/b]
duecer: 5 year avg rating= 1305, opponents rating avg (5year)= 1391
1391/1305= 1.07
1.07 x 0.8= .856
greenpawn: 5year rating: 1893, opponents 1560; 1560/1893=.82
.82 x 13.3= 10.9
when evaluating players of similar elo's this may be a handy way to calculate a more accurate strength comparison. what does the peanut gallery think?
1 edit
Originally posted by duecerMe likey. Since chess players often improve/worsen over time, we may also want to consider doing the opp avg/my avg a second time using 1-year rating stats to incorporate the present with the 5-year historical index:
here's an interesting way to amend your stats
duecer: 5 year avg rating= 1305, opponents rating avg (5year)= 1391
1391/1305= 1.07
1.07 x 0.8= .856
greenpawn: 5year rating: 1893, opponents 1560; 1560/1893=.82
.82 x 13.3= 10.9
when evaluating players of similar elo's this may be a handy way to calculate a more accurate strength comparison. what does the peanut gallery think?
Duecer: Non-loss/loss ratio = .80 x 1.07 (1391/1303, 5-year) = .86 x 1.12 (1467/1312, 1-year) = .96 x 100 (to get rid of the decimal) = 96 (RHP Strength Rating as of July, 2010).
........................................................
1 edit
Finally, a point in time sampling summary of active RHP Member/GF Poster site activity option preferences:
* Total Move Volume: Coquette 99.0%... Very Rusty 95.7%... ChessPraxis 92.4%... Duecer 88.4%
* Public Forum Chat: Phlabibit 66.5%... Trev33 61.3%... Grampy Bobby 50.5%... Greenpawn34 49.9%
* Chess Game Efficiency: Greenpawn34 13.3... ChessPraxis 5.7... Grampy Bobby 4.0... Trev33 2.4
...............................................................................
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYour statistic for me is false, it doesn't cover Game Moderation, Game Moderation ideas for tools, Time spent running numbers, Sending Feedback, Fairplay tickets, Forum Moderation, Moderation ideas for tools, Making and Hosting avatars, Logos, Profile pictures and many of the other things I do or have done for and at RHP.
Finally, a point in time sampling summary of active RHP Member/GF Poster site activity option preferences:
[b]* Total Move Volume: Coquette 99.0%... Very Rusty 95.7%... ChessPraxis 92.4%... Duecer 88.4%
* Public Forum Chat: Phlabibit 66.5%... Trev33 61.3%... Grampy Bobby 50.5%... Greenpawn34 49.9%
* Chess Game Efficiency: ...[text shortened]... rev33 2.4
...............................................................................[/b]
P-
Originally posted by PhlabibitThanks, Phil. Please help me correct the sampling summary by providing your
Your statistic for me is false, it doesn't cover Game Moderation, Game Moderation ideas for tools, Time spent running numbers, Sending Feedback, Fairplay tickets, Forum Moderation, Moderation ideas for tools, Making and Hosting avatars, Logos, Profile pictures and many of the other things I do or have done for and at RHP.
P-
best estimate of an accurate voluntary post volume relative to chess moves.
.................................................................
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYour number is fine for moves vs posting... but leaves out all the other aspects that can't be measured.
Thanks, Phil. Please help me correct the sampling summary by providing your
best estimate of an accurate voluntary post volume relative to chess moves.
.................................................................
So when you say, "...summary of active RHP Member/GF Poster site activity option preferences" Your number is incorrect. There is much I do at and for RHP you don't (and I could never) measure.
P-