Help
14 Jul 03
14 Jul 03
It might be helpful if everyone's profile also had their average rating...it's a bit of a shock to find out that the 106-rated player you went after for easy points is really just last year's (inactive of late) answer to Tebb 😉. Seriously, though, it might be an interesting statistic, and I don't think too hard to implement, as all of the necessary data is in the Rating/Time graphs anyway.
14 Jul 03
This idea was brought about in my games with a very good player, whose rating is similar to mine now. Since mine is currently in a slump, I am normally quite confident against ~1300 players. Only when he busted out the lead-filled snowshoe in 3 of our 4 games did I look at the graph and see that he seems to be about a 1600 player normally. Hehe 😉. I'm learning a bit though, and quite enjoying these games.
14 Jul 03
Originally posted by royalchickenYou can do that now by checking a player's "rating over time" chart. A quick scan of yours revealed a 1422 high rating.
It might be helpful if everyone's profile also had their average rating...it's a bit of a shock to find out that the 106-rated player you went after for easy points is really just last year's (inactive of late) answer to Tebb 😉. Seriously, though, it might be an interesting statistic, and I don't think too hard to implement, as all of the necessary data is in the Rating/Time graphs anyway.
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
15 Jul 03
Originally posted by royalchickenI would contend that if you judge the goodness of a rating by its ability to predict the outcome of games before they are played, then the current rating would come out as a pretty good indicator and the average rating over 100 games as a rather worse one.
That is exactly what I am talking about. A smoothed and scaled average of the results of the past few games is not always a good indicator of the player's strength. The smoothed an scaled average of scores or hundreds of games is.
15 Jul 03
1 edit
Originally posted by iamatigerI think you're both right to an extent - a distinction though helps.
I would contend that if you judge the goodness of a rating by its ability to predict the outcome of games before they are played, then the current rating would come out as a pretty good indicator and the average rating over 100 games as a rather worse one.
Where the player involved isn't particularly a frequent mover I'd agree with the tiger. The current rating is probably a better indicator (assuming sufficient number of games played).
I would say though that the Chickman has a point when it comes to the more frequent players. Regular movers with a certain rating (ie not 1800+ where it's hard to come by points) tend to have rather volatile ratings, whereby the current rating mightn't be wholly representative of their true strength, and that an average over 100 games might be more accurate.
Personally I'd be interested in turning the whole thing on its head, and would quite like to see in my profile some sort of average rating of the last 100 opponents I've played for example. There are some relatively very strong people that I've seen below 1400 (Tim Robinson and hypermo2001 for instance), resulting I suspect from a preference to play strong, fairly highly rated opponents.
T1000
16 Jul 03
4 edits
Originally posted by iamatigerNo, because there are too many variables. The biggest factor (as T1000 has mentioned before) is the number of games you've got going. For example, I play reasonably well with fewer than about 10 games, but any more than that and I'm garbage....some people have much higher "crap thresholds" than this. Latex Bishop, for example, has me pretty well beaten in two games right now, but he's got over 60 games going 🙄
I would contend that if you judge the goodness of a rating by its ability to predict the outcome of games before they are played, then the current rating would come out as a pretty good indicator and the average rating over 100 games as a rather worse one.
16 Jul 03
Originally posted by royalchickenGreat idea. I was about to start a game against mmanuel when I realized he said on the forums he'd been at university for a year and was timed out.
It might be helpful if everyone's profile also had their average rating...it's a bit of a shock to find out that the 106-rated player you went after for easy points is really just last year's (inactive of late) answer to Tebb 😉. Seriously, though, it might be an interesting statistic, and I don't think too hard to implement, as all of the necessary data is in the Rating/Time graphs anyway.