Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI have been on this site for approximately 4.76% of my life.
Aren't all of us exceptional or average or mediocre in some areas; how is it possible to net an individual's
unique profile to arrive at a human rating (which may well change positively or negatively over time)?
2 edits
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyTo assign a qualitative value, I think I am able to say that I have learned 99% of the chess I know on this site, as when I joined in February I really only knew how the pieces moved.
That's an amazing quantitative rating; how would you assign a meaningful qualitative index or rating?
Originally posted by TygertSo, [4.76%/1526] would be your own unique combined quantitative/qualitative site rating?
To assign a qualitative value, I think I am able to say that I have learned 99% of the chess I know [b]on this site, as when I joined in February I really only knew how the pieces moved.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyNot amazing at all when you consider the fact that the site is less than 13 years old.
That's an amazing quantitative rating; how would you assign a meaningful qualitative index or rating?
Of necessity, older players have low ratings and younger players can be close to 50%.