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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 27 Jul '06 22:20
    I think a nice statistic that should be added to the player profile on RHP is the average opponent rating (at the time of starting a game). This would help reveal who is highly rated for beating low rated guys, vice-versa, and who is genuinely at their rating.
  2. 27 Jul '06 22:25
    Did you post it in the site suggestions?
    Maybe the Admins will develop it
  3. 27 Jul '06 22:58 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Sicilian Smaug
    No, bad idea. I regularly play people in my clan for instructive games (unrated)+ games with friends that are 500+ points lower for fun-at their request. Should I be viewed badly because of that?
    What if it only applied to opponents in rated games? I don't think it's a bad idea, though there are certainly other things I'd like to see implemented first (a much stronger game database system is tops on the list).
  4. 27 Jul '06 23:07 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Sicilian Smaug
    But the games, non instructive I play against friends with say 1400 ratings always we do rated.
    Aha! Your rating inflation secret is out!

    Seriously, if keeping track of this made it harder for lower ranked players to get challenging games, that would be a bad result. But it would be interesting to get a better sense of who plays who.

    What I really wish I could do is sort players' public games by result and by opening, as well as search RHP games based on opening.
  5. 27 Jul '06 23:07
    I would think a lot of people would find it interesting to know what they themselves have been doing.

    And it would also flush out others who try to bump their rating by consistently playing people (200 to 400 points below them). Someone comes to mind off the bat.

    Although this is a rarity as it is the opposite that happens when it comes to which tournament group you may be in.
  6. 27 Jul '06 23:13 / 2 edits
    I quite like the idea, however, it does have a few problems...

    imagine for example your 1300, and constantly play 1300 players

    a few months later, after a very long plateau at 1300 (250games vs. fellow 1300's) you suddenly get good....going from 1300 to 1600 in 52 games - all of those 52 games against 1600-1700's...and winning the majority of them...

    then, someone looks at your average opp rating and its around the 1400-1500 mark.... people then conclude that you got to 1600 by constantly playing 1400 players, which is a misrepresentation of the truth.

    but still, I think that statistic should be made, but anyone with a brain wouldn't make too many assumptions based on it....
  7. 28 Jul '06 00:03
    Originally posted by Bishopcrw
    And it would also flush out others who try to bump their rating by consistently playing people (200 to 400 points below them).
    Supposing I only play people 500 points below me. According to yourself this should allow me to increase my rating. So my rating increases and I once again subtract 500 from it, and I only play players at this new lower limit. I repeat again and again, and my rating keeps increasing and increasing...

    Or does it? Of course not. This notion of "it's easier to increase your rating by only playing significantly lower rated player" is nonsense. If you think there's truth in it, you don't understand how the rating system works.
  8. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    28 Jul '06 00:17
    Originally posted by Varenka
    Or does it? Of course not. This notion of "it's easier to increase your rating by only playing significantly lower rated player" is nonsense. If you think there's truth in it, you don't understand how the rating system works.
    if you play more carefully against low rated players than people on average you will win more games than the rating difference would imply. resulting in higher rating for yourself, as the 'loot' is determined as if you were as careful as people on average.

    it's a lot easier to play against a 1600 with 80% wins than a 1600 with 50% or less wins. the other guy plays against 1200-1300's, and the other against 1600's.
  9. 28 Jul '06 00:22
    But if you're playing more carefully, you're playing better. And yes, it's easier to increase you're rating if you play better against any level of opponent.

    Are you saying that the rating system has a flaw in it, and that players can benefit from this? I don't think so.
  10. 28 Jul '06 00:30 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Varenka
    Supposing I only play people 500 points below me. According to yourself this should allow me to increase my rating. So my rating increases and I once again subtract 500 from it, and I only play players at this new lower limit. I repeat again and again, and my rating keeps increasing and increasing...

    Or does it? Of course not. This notion of "it's ea sense. If you think there's truth in it, you don't understand how the rating system works.
    You misunderstand, perhaps due to a lack of clarity on my part.

    I do understand how the rating system works and although greater gains in rating are more easily achieved by winning at or above your rank.

    My post more referred to a specific individual who consistently only issues challenges to 900-1100 rated players dispite a rating of almost 1300.

    It is clear that he is using this as a mehtod of making consistent but small gains to his rating. And thus inflating his rating over time. And has not increased his base of opponents he plays despite the increase in rating

    Unfortunately he is the one being cheated by his own method as the lack of challenge and insight surely has stunted his growth.
  11. 28 Jul '06 00:38
    Originally posted by Bishopcrw
    It is clear that he is using this as a mehtod of making consistent but small gains to his rating.
    But we're in agreement that the higher he rises, the smaller the gains he gets from each win. So how is that a consistent rise? It's tapering off towards a gain of 0 points for a win.
  12. 28 Jul '06 00:59
    Originally posted by Varenka
    But we're in agreement that the higher he rises, the smaller the gains he gets from each win. So how is that a consistent rise? It's tapering off towards a gain of 0 points for a win.
    You seem to be over looking one part of your statement.
    " the higher he rises" this is an over inflating of his rating and actual talent. Which is what my post was about.

    If this is still to inspecific for you to understand the concept behind the post i could go into mind numbing detail about the amount of increase he gains to his score over time. This is not what the post was about.

    Not about the limit imposed by the calc, or even whether it is worthwhile to do this considering the deminishing returns. That is a personal judgement that each player has to make for themselves.

    And MOST do not consider it worthwhile.
    Try and take my use of the word "consistent" as a generalization of trend rather than specific detail.

    Anything else you want to quibble about?
  13. 28 Jul '06 01:29
    Originally posted by Bishopcrw
    Anything else you want to quibble about?
    No quibbles. Just answer this...

    A genuine 1300 rated player plays a genuine 1000 rated player a match consisting of one million games. What do you estimate the end ratings to be?

    I'm saying 1300 and 1000 respectively. Your answer?
  14. Standard member Spacetime
    Not material
    28 Jul '06 03:49
    There is a high probability that a 1300 player will lose to the 1000 player often enough to offset any long term gains.

    For example, if the win expectancy is 84.9% then the 1300 will gain 4.83 points for a win, and the 1300 player will lose 27.17 points for a loss.

    So the expected value of long term gains is 84.9%(4.83) + 15.1%(-27.17)=0.

    In the long run, the expected rating increase is 0 and the ratings will stay the same (this assumes no player's ability changes in that time).
  15. 28 Jul '06 06:10
    Originally posted by chesskid001
    I think a nice statistic that should be added to the player profile on RHP is the average opponent rating (at the time of starting a game). This would help reveal who is highly rated for beating low rated guys, vice-versa, and who is genuinely at their rating.
    Surely if a player does this there is always a risk they will lose and their long awaited higher rating would crash. Along the way they are also giving many lower rated players the chance to play a higher rated player and learn from the experience. If it is, as you suggest, a way of creating an "artificially" high rating then it is a long slow way of earning this rating and I'd be happy to leave them to it expecting that one day they will want to know what it's like to play a stonger player.

    You could also argue that a player might acheive an artificially low rating by only playing higher rated players and this may give them some unfair advantage say in a ranked tournament. It's very difficult to legislate against this sort of thing and probably rare enough not to be a concern.