#### Only Chess Forum

1. 29 Aug '11 20:47
Go to the player tables and look yourself up. Write down your rank (left hand column). Call the result A. (To be precise, subtract 1 from your rank.)

Go to the last page of players and write down the rank of the lowest rated player. Call it B.

A/B is the fraction of RHP players whose rating is higher than yours.
2.  dzirilli
Duchampion
31 Aug '11 02:03
28% ... except that my score bounces up and down by around 100 points. I really have to wonder about the rating system, to have all those games and still have the rating be so volatile.
3.  sonhouse
Fast and Curious
31 Aug '11 03:50
Originally posted by JS357
Go to the player tables and look yourself up. Write down your rank (left hand column). Call the result A. (To be precise, subtract 1 from your rank.)

Go to the last page of players and write down the rank of the lowest rated player. Call it B.

A/B is the fraction of RHP players whose rating is higher than yours.
It sucks I have 1167 players above me! Long way to climb. Now that we have done that exercise, the last number is 16464 so mine 1168/16464 comes out to about 7%. I guess to put that in percentile, it would be 100-7 or 93rd percentile. Is that right?

Anyone else doing this can just use 16464 now, no need to look it up. Any changes from day to day would be minimal, wouldn't change much if it was 16000 or 17000.

Obviously the spread would be a lot less than that so that just makes using 16464 accurate for a long time.

So Skeeter: 0/16464? or 1/16464? zero doesn't work math wise of course so it would be the second one. That is 6E-5.or 99.9999 th percentile looks like.
4.  ketchuplover
G.O.A.T.
31 Aug '11 09:28
5. 01 Sep '11 02:17
Originally posted by sonhouse
It sucks I have 1167 players above me! Long way to climb. Now that we have done that exercise, the last number is 16464 so mine 1168/16464 comes out to about 7%. I guess to put that in percentile, it would be 100-7 or 93rd percentile. Is that right?

Anyone else doing this can just use 16464 now, no need to look it up. Any changes from day to day would b ...[text shortened]... se of course so it would be the second one. That is 6E-5.or 99.9999 th percentile looks like.
i guess i'm around the same as you, thanks for doing the math
6. 01 Sep '11 02:32
Originally posted by sonhouse
It sucks I have 1167 players above me! Long way to climb. Now that we have done that exercise, the last number is 16464 so mine 1168/16464 comes out to about 7%. I guess to put that in percentile, it would be 100-7 or 93rd percentile. Is that right?

Anyone else doing this can just use 16464 now, no need to look it up. Any changes from day to day would b ...[text shortened]... se of course so it would be the second one. That is 6E-5.or 99.9999 th percentile looks like.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 0 doesn't work. Yes, 0% of the players on RHP are higher rated than skeeter.
7.  Paul Leggett
Chess Librarian
01 Sep '11 02:42 / 1 edit
This is interesting, but since all this is based on the ratings we have here, I would not make too much of it.

I consider my own rating to be dubious, compared to my OTB rating (I have a big library which I can't consult or even recall as well as I'd like OTB...), and there are others I have played on the site that are dubious (I mean this in an honest sense) in both directions.

pdunne, for instance, is currently rated in the low 1800's, and against him I have won 2, drawn 2, and lost 3 (we have some in progress, but he's still tough). I think he is actually a little better than me, but our ratings definitely don't reflect that. A rating is a number, but the board doesn't lie to me!

On the other hand, Levon Sargissian, Kings and pawns, and Ocean64 (who is an OTB friend of mine), are every bit as strong as their ratings suggest, and they beat the \$%^\$% out of me on a regular basis. Kings and pawns in particular leaves me in awe at how easily he plays and wins- I would imagine it's like what playing Capablanca would be like.

You just never know sometimes!
8. 01 Sep '11 16:45
Originally posted by Paul Leggett
This is interesting, but since all this is based on the ratings we have here, I would not make too much of it.

I consider my own rating to be dubious, compared to my OTB rating (I have a big library which I can't consult or even recall as well as I'd like OTB...), and there are others I have played on the site that are dubious (I mean this in an hone ...[text shortened]... magine it's like what playing Capablanca would be like.

You just never know sometimes!
well regardless of ratings there's always going to be occasional clash in styles which favors the lower ranked player.

saying that, there's probably just too many influences which results in someones rating to judge if it reflects their playing strength or not. how much time the take on moves, some people take more care against higher rated people but often make silly errors against lower ratings. timeouts obviously affects peoples rating... the lists goes on and on.
9.  wormwood
If Theres Hell Below
01 Sep '11 17:52
Originally posted by trev33
well regardless of ratings there's always going to be occasional clash in styles which favors the lower ranked player.

saying that, there's probably just too many influences which results in someones rating to judge if it reflects their playing strength or not. how much time the take on moves, some people take more care against higher rated people but ofte ...[text shortened]... against lower ratings. timeouts obviously affects peoples rating... the lists goes on and on.
ICC shows your past score against players when you start a new game. there's a guy who tends to be about 100pts lower than me, my arch enemy. I think he's now won 8 and I've won 1. another guy, roughly equally rated, just won his first game out of 13 against me.

some styles are just poison to yours, you can never know from the rating alone.
10. 01 Sep '11 18:23 / 1 edit
Originally posted by wormwood
ICC shows your past score against players when you start a new game. there's a guy who tends to be about 100pts lower than me, my arch enemy. I think he's now won 8 and I've won 1. another guy, roughly equally rated, just won his first game out of 13 against me.

some styles are just poison to yours, you can never know from the rating alone.
so true...
11.  sonhouse
Fast and Curious
01 Sep '11 18:42
Originally posted by range blasts
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 0 doesn't work. Yes, 0% of the players on RHP are higher rated than skeeter.
Zero divided by anything is still zero, not much help in a graph.
12.  nimzo5
Ronin
01 Sep '11 23:11
Originally posted by wormwood
ICC shows your past score against players when you start a new game. there's a guy who tends to be about 100pts lower than me, my arch enemy. I think he's now won 8 and I've won 1. another guy, roughly equally rated, just won his first game out of 13 against me.

some styles are just poison to yours, you can never know from the rating alone.
True. I have 0 wins and 6 draws vs Ragwort despite something like 400+ rating points difference. Introduce a large enough pool and someone will be strong where you are weak regardless of rating.

Ragwort at some point I want a mini-match!
13.  Ragwort
Ex Duris Gloria
04 Sep '11 21:18
Originally posted by nimzo5
True. I have 0 wins and 6 draws vs Ragwort despite something like 400+ rating points difference. Introduce a large enough pool and someone will be strong where you are weak regardless of rating.

Ragwort at some point I want a mini-match!
I think you should have won at least two of those six. My favourite was the Open Lopez game where you forced me to sac the Queen to leave unbalanced material...

Anyway send us a PM with your terms...
14.  nimzo5
Ronin
04 Sep '11 21:28
Will do!