umble pie for sale
If win percent is applied to rating, Seadevil's performance/efficiency rating = 2292* (followed by PAWN RIOT 2200, Akizy 2185, Peter9
2171 and Weyerstrass 2114). Here's the 'umble pie' part. Do the math with your own profile numbers... present rating x wins divided
by total games divided by 2292* = Your RHP Site Performance Percentile. Would estimate that 75-80% of all members will fall below
50% (my own is barely above 40). Guessing that both misery and mediocrity usually love company. So a warm welcome to the dungeon.
😀
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby58%
umble pie for sale
If win percent is applied to rating, Seadevil's performance/efficiency rating = 2292* (followed by PAWN RIOT 2200, Akizy 2185, Peter9
2171 and Weyerstrass 2114). Here's the 'umble pie' part. Do the math with your own profile numbers... present rating x wins divided
by total games divided by 2292* = Your RHP Site Performa ...[text shortened]... h misery and mediocrity usually love company. So a warm welcome to the dungeon.
😀
Thats the figure. I'm still not sure what it tells me though?
Originally posted by PolicestateWell, let's agree that the raw rating reflects weighted competitive performance. Okay so far? Win percent is a near universal absolute
58%
Thats the figure. I'm still not sure what it tells me though?
measure of efficiency of execution. Combining the two I thought might yield an enhanced dimension to the rating. Comparing it to the
absolute highest provides a relative percentile ranking. It deflates the raw rating in a massive way... which prompted the humility title.
-gb
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyGive me a scenario.
Well, let's agree that the raw rating reflects weighted competitive performance. Okay so far? Win percent is a near universal absolute
measure of efficiency of execution. Combining the two I thought might yield an enhanced dimension to the rating. Comparing it to the
absolute highest provides a relative percentile ranking. It deflates the raw rating in a massive way... which prompted the humility title.
-gb
Does this distinguish two players with identical high ratings, one who has got there by a long series of incremental wins against much lower rated opposition, the other who only punches above his weight but as a result loses more?
I'm struggling to visualise what this is telling me 🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by PolicestateLocking in on these synergistic variables of competitive strength and dominance/efficiency is about as far as I can
Give me a scenario.
Does this distinguish two players with identical high ratings, one who has got there by a long series of incremental wins against much lower rated opposition, the other who only punches above his weight but as a result loses more?
I'm struggling to visualise what this is telling me 🙂
take it today. Did consider the staying power and durability factors of volume of games (at least as a base knockout
factor for 'provisionals' with, let's say, fewer than 100 games) as well as total moves or average moves per game
(low being favorable) but the direct correlation was unclear and its expression in simple math obviously escaped
my ability. So please stand on my shoulders, if you would, and take the inquiry a few next steps further. Tell you one
thing, if anyone ever defeats Weyerstrass you'll notice yours truly at the window cashing a $2.00 bet on seadevil.
😀
The post that was quoted here has been removedHey, Smaug, you've really got no business whatsoever complaining. You're doing quite okay... with an 1815 rating... 1789 wins... out of
2601 (rated) games yielding a 1248 Performance/Efficiency Rating... and a 54.5% RHP Percentile as compared with 2292 for seadevil.
🙂
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI have given this some thought GB. I think that (as one would expect) the rating is the best and most informative measure of playing strength.
Locking in on these synergistic variables of competitive strength and dominance/efficiency is about as far as I can
take it today. Did consider the staying power and durability factors of volume of games (at least as a base knockout
factor for 'provisionals' with, let's say, fewer than 100 games) as well as total moves or average moves per game
...[text shortened]... erstrass you'll notice yours truly at the window cashing a $2.00 bet on seadevil.
😀
The problem with my 58% vs your 40% is that the win % is a function of opposition strength. I am therefore not 'better' than you because I have won nearly 20% more of my games. I could have picked far easier opponents than you. The rating is the only accurate way to seperate us.
Take my example of two players rated 2000. One has achieved this rating by winning 100 consecutive games against players rated below 1500. This gives him a win % of 100 (obviously).
Player 2 also has a rating of 2000, but has lost 10 of his 100 games, all to players of 2200+, winning the remainder against a variety of opposition much closer to his own playing strength.
I think that your formula would place player 1 at 87%, above player 2 (who would score 79😵.
The rating system says these players are of equal strength. I would suggest that player 2 has shown more calibre as a chess player. Certainly, one wouldn't argue that just because player 1 has won a higher proportion of games, that he is better than player 2, as your formula suggests?
GB, that really tired me out. I'm off for a cocoa and a cigar 🙂
PS Can someone with more math ability than GB or I come to the rescue? I know that statisticians have wrestled with these matters for decades 🙂
Originally posted by PolicestateWhy is there a smug looking smilie where I didn't invite it 😵
I have given this some thought GB. I think that (as one would expect) the rating is the best and most informative measure of playing strength.
The problem with my 58% vs your 40% is that the win % is a function of opposition strength. I am therefore not 'better' than you because I have won nearly 20% more of my games. I could have picked far easier opp ...[text shortened]... ome to the rescue? I know that statisticians have wrestled with these matters for decades 🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by PolicestateThanks, Boss. We're done for now. Enjoy that well rolled cigar and, while you're doing so, do remember that so
I have given this some thought GB. I think that (as one would expect) the rating is the best and most informative measure of playing strength.
The problem with my 58% vs your 40% is that the win % is a function of opposition strength. I am therefore not 'better' than you because I have won nearly 20% more of my games. I could have picked far easier opp ome to the rescue? I know that statisticians have wrestled with these matters for decades 🙂
much of our blood, sweat and tears is all about the quest... and to a real but lesser extent about the grail.
-gb
P.S. Think maybe we are both looking at the same chess prowess elephant in the selfsame ancient, defecatory jungle ring. Just that
you're looking steadfastly north at a gray one, while I'm inspecting a pink one from a slightly different vantage point ... Oh, nevermind.
😀
Question for you math boys. I play a wide variety of players. Ratings, etc. My win ratio is higher than my loss but I cannot advance beyond a certain level. My losses to lower rated players keeps me down. I blame it on sandbaggers. However some of these losses of mine are to maturing players (non sandbaggers) and I applaud them, but the sandbaggers ruin the true character of the rating system. I think there is far more sandbagging than machine users. I good reason, the machine users probably concentrate on higher rated players. Why take a chance getting caught by machining a mediocre player like me? I just wish there were a true system. But congratulations on your efforts. I think you are on to something. Your system just might give a better picture of a players performance and/or abilities.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyAKIZY...
umble pie for sale
If win percent is applied to rating, Seadevil's performance/efficiency rating = 2292* (followed by PAWN RIOT 2200, Akizy 2185, Peter9
2171 and Weyerstrass 2114). Here's the 'umble pie' part. Do the math with your own profile numbers... present rating x wins divided
by total games divided by 2292* = Your RHP Site Performa ...[text shortened]... h misery and mediocrity usually love company. So a warm welcome to the dungeon.
😀
Phlabibit, this is the thread recognizing Akizy's superior standing that I mentioned to you only a few moments ago.
He leaves with our admiration... despite the inexcusably mean spirited and tasteless posts of others earlier today.
-gb