Isn't it fantastic...

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Thanks, Phil. Please help me correct the sampling summary by providing your

best estimate of an accurate voluntary post volume relative to chess moves.



.................................................................

You may call me "Hated One" if you like.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Your number is fine for moves vs posting... but leaves out all the other aspects that can't be measured.

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-

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Also, quit referring to me as Phil. If I wanted to go by Phil as a name I'd have russ change it and sign my name as Phil. I have not done either.

Thanks in advance.

P-

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12

Originally posted by Phlabibit
You may call me "Hated One" if you like.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Me 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:


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 ...[text shortened]... Strength Rating as of July, 2010).


........................................................

Originally posted by duecer
hmmm. yes quite right, getting rid of the decimal works better. so if we take two players of near equal rating, we can input this formula and should be able to deduce strength reletive to ELO.

Coquette : 1.16 x 105= 121.8

I have a similar rating range vs coquette, but have never even come close to beating her, this methodoligy is anectdotally true thus far. I will look further into this. It may be a way for clan leaders to asses challanges.

Here's a virgin look at the innovative July, 2010, 'RHP Strength Ratings'

(with thanks to Greenpawn34, Duecer and Kes29)....



* Greenpawn34... 811

* ChessPraxis... 439

* Grampy Bobby... 347

* Trev33... 224

* Very Rusty... 172

* Phlabibit... 157

* Darvlay... 117

* Coquette... 115

* Frank Burns... 102

* Duecer... 96



Note: Calculated by applying the simple math displayed in my reply this morning

to Duecer (thread page 2) using profile stats of record as of this date and time.



.........................................................................

Originally posted by duecer
hmmm. yes quite right, getting rid of the decimal works better. so if we take two players of near equal rating, we can input this formula and should be able to deduce strength reletive to ELO.

Coquette : 1.16 x 105= 121.8

I have a similar rating range vs coquette, but have never even come close to beating her, this methodoligy is anectdotally true thus far. I will look further into this. It may be a way for clan leaders to asses challanges.

Originally posted by Phlabibit

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-

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Out of curiosity, Phlabibit, wouldn't inclusion of moderator related personal messages, as you've stated, within the 1,833 pages, 27,495 public forum posts recorded in your personal profile breach both site and member confidentiality?


........................................................................

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
That all depends on who does it. If you or I do it then

________________________________

Still cannot see where the relative strength of your opponents is considered.

The % of opponents grades giving in a profile is enough to see
the relative strentgh of opposition, that is really all you need.

I agree with Phlabibit, using peoples real names kind of shatters our RHP world.
Let's us keep it in the ether where we drift past each other like lonely ships in the night.

We can wave or fire cannons but we are just passinng by.

Originally posted by greenpawn34

(1) Still cannot see where the relative strength of your opponents is considered.

The % of opponents grades giving in a profile is enough to see
the relative strentgh of opposition, that is really all you need.

(2) I agree with Phlabibit, using peoples real names kind of shatters our RHP world.
Let's us keep it in the ether where we drift past ...[text shortened]... er like lonely ships in the night.

We can wave or fire cannons but we are just passinng by.