Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 21 Apr '14 15:07
    Hello.


    Since all chess player’s ratings are between 800 and 2900, why don’t we make a new rating defined like this:
    New rating = (Old rating – 800) / 2.2
    So that all chess player’s ratings would be between 0 and 999.


    Or if we would like that the weakest players have a rating starting with the digit “1” (a rating >= 100) we could define the new rating like that:
    New rating = (Old rating – 600) / 2.4


    Or if we would like to be able to easily convert between old and new ratings we could define the new rating like this:
    New rating = (Old rating – 1000) / 2
    (Though here extremely weak players would have a negative rating.)


    My point is that we would have almost the same precision, but we would only need to use 3 digits instead of 4.

    I believe the current rating system is bad because a big range of numbers (3000 to 9999) isn’t used.

    What do you think?
  2. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    21 Apr '14 15:26
    Originally posted by Marc Benford
    What do you think?
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    It's a statistical measurement. What matters is not the value of the rating, but its difference from another rating.
  3. Standard member Copope
    Duck
    22 Apr '14 06:47
    Does the rating people start with affect the average rating? what i mean is that on other sites, instead of the provisional period, they just drop you in. Years ago on yahoo chess it was 1200, they said they choose this b/c it was the average. On the surface this is fine. After, say, 30 games your rating should stabilize. However, if everyone starts at 1500, you could have two completely different ratings on two sites and both would be accurate. I guess what I'm asking is if my thinking on this is flawed?

    I have more to say on ratings but it may be too off topic.
  4. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    22 Apr '14 21:07
    Originally posted by Copope
    Does the rating people start with affect the average rating? what i mean is that on other sites, instead of the provisional period, they just drop you in. Years ago on yahoo chess it was 1200, they said they choose this b/c it was the average. On the surface this is fine. After, say, 30 games your rating should stabilize. However, if everyone starts at 1500, ...[text shortened]... my thinking on this is flawed?

    I have more to say on ratings but it may be too off topic.
    How would you cope with ratings inflation?
  5. Standard member Schlecter
    The King of Board
    22 Apr '14 23:39
    I remember that in yahoo there are colors for different rating. so 1200 to 1400 = blue, 1400 to 1600 = green, 1600 to 1800 = yellow, >1800 Red.
    -
    So the colors are in some way a rating system in its own right, with just 4 grades.
  6. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    24 Apr '14 02:25
    Originally posted by Schlecter
    I remember that in yahoo there are colors for different rating. so 1200 to 1400 = blue, 1400 to 1600 = green, 1600 to 1800 = yellow, >1800 Red.
    -
    So the colors are in some way a rating system in its own right, with just 4 grades.
    They made the highest rating red as a warning against computer users.
  7. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    24 Apr '14 05:24
    Originally posted by Marc Benford
    Hello.


    Since all chess player’s ratings are between 800 and 2900, why don’t we make a new rating defined like this:
    New rating = (Old rating – 800) / 2.2
    So that all chess player’s ratings would be between 0 and 999.


    Or if we would like that the weakest players have a rating starting with the digit “1” (a rating >= 100) we could define the n ...[text shortened]... ng system is bad because a big range of numbers (3000 to 9999) isn’t used.

    What do you think?
    Interesting idea, but I don't think it would be any more accurate than what we have now, and that one extra diget is not an awesome burden
  8. Standard member ChessPraxis
    Cowboy From Hell
    24 Apr '14 05:56
    Originally posted by Marc Benford
    Hello.


    Since all chess player’s ratings are between 800 and 2900, why don’t we make a new rating defined like this:
    New rating = (Old rating – 800) / 2.2
    So that all chess player’s ratings would be between 0 and 999.


    Or if we would like that the weakest players have a rating starting with the digit “1” (a rating >= 100) we could define the n ...[text shortened]... ng system is bad because a big range of numbers (3000 to 9999) isn’t used.

    What do you think?
    It's a livin' thing,
    It's a terrible thing to lose
    It's a given thing
    What a terrible thing to lose.

    Oh... Elo, I thought this was an ELO thread, my bad.
  9. Standard member Schlecter
    The King of Board
    24 Apr '14 13:47 / 1 edit
    What exactly tells the ELO system to us the RHP players?.
    -
    For example I found very important the ELO graphic in the users profile.
    -
    It shows good and bad days for a player