24 Jan 11
If my game does not improve, I would expect my rating to fluctuate within a given range over time. Lately I've been noticing that my opponents have, almost without exception, suffered a fall in ratings of perhaps 100 points over time, as have I. If my opponent gains/loses the same number of points as I do, how does this happen?
24 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by ExumaYou are from the Bahama's? Which Island? I worked on Andros at AUTEC years ago, lived in Cokley town, at the time when I had to take a boat across Fresh Creek at 5 am and back at something like 5 pm. Any other time, the boatman, called "Premier' had to be bribed with a fifth of rum. I understand they built a bridge there now. I really loved that place. I took a 12 string guitar with and asked the people there if there were any guitarists and all they could think of was a blind piano player at Papa Gopolis's bar, where I lived upstairs in the hotel.
I'm not sure, but I usually gain rating at the beginning of tournaments, then drop as the harder games kick in. I also feel like I lose rating this time of year. Seattle in the winter for a Bahamian = ugh.
I found out later about the Pindar family and Joseph Spence, a master guitarist and the Pindars were great singers. They all lived on Andros but I didn't know it at the time. Probably less than a mile from Papa Gopolas bar. Have you ever heard of Joseph Spence or the Pindar family?
If you think winter in Seattle sucks, try Pennsylvania, it is supposed to get to around zero F tonight and there is about 6 inches of snow on the ground.....
24 Jan 11
Originally posted by KewpieBlame Skeeter, apparently everyone else does.
If my game does not improve, I would expect my rating to fluctuate within a given range over time. Lately I've been noticing that my opponents have, almost without exception, suffered a fall in ratings of perhaps 100 points over time, as have I. If my opponent gains/loses the same number of points as I do, how does this happen?
24 Jan 11
Originally posted by KewpieA fall in ratings would be rating deflation.
If my game does not improve, I would expect my rating to fluctuate within a given range over time. Lately I've been noticing that my opponents have, almost without exception, suffered a fall in ratings of perhaps 100 points over time, as have I. If my opponent gains/loses the same number of points as I do, how does this happen?
Maybe since most of the RHP super GM's have been banned for cheating there are now several thousand fewer points floating around. With fewer points, each individual point becomes more valuable, and thus there is rating deflation.
But my answer is based on thinking about points like they're currency. I'm sure someone here will throw some math at me to show me how I'm wrong.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
24 Jan 11
Originally posted by KewpieLots of ratings profiles show sawtooths, periods of mostly losing alternating with periods of mostly winning. That's intriguing. But I would not call it inflation.
If my game does not improve, I would expect my rating to fluctuate within a given range over time. Lately I've been noticing that my opponents have, almost without exception, suffered a fall in ratings of perhaps 100 points over time, as have I. If my opponent gains/loses the same number of points as I do, how does this happen?
24 Jan 11
In CC these sort of ratings moves are as pronounced as a drunken evening of speed chess. This is because a player can delay taking losses till a peak rating is reached or conversely resign all their losing games right before they convert winning positions into wins. There is much more manipulation of this both ways.
27 Jan 11
Originally posted by JS357My rating profile corresponds roughly to park attendance at Walt Disney World. I am a manager there, and when we are busy, my graph drops, and when we slow down, it goes up.
Lots of ratings profiles show sawtooths, periods of mostly losing alternating with periods of mostly winning. That's intriguing. But I would not call it inflation.
I've started to view my graph as my biorhythm.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 27978
30 Jan 11
Originally posted by hedonistLook on the bright side! Everyone else is getting better!
Rating inflation scares me.
My OTB rating has been roughly the same for a few years now.
Which can only mean I'm getting worse :'(
Seriously, I love chess, ratings don't measure understanding and I suspect that they really don't infallibly measure results. If they represented a difference in cash (like they do for the top over-the-board players) then I would be concerned, as it is I am just happy to be able to play chess!
31 Jan 11
my guess is if someone is defeating a certain level of ranked opponents, after a time they will choose to start playing players at a higher level. At some point, they will stop winning and start losing since they are playing better players. After they lose a bit, they drop back down to win a bit, then back up. Thus my non-scientific reasoning for the seesaw charts.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
31 Jan 11
Originally posted by kwojtaszThey might not have a choice of whether to eventually complete games against better opponents if they are in a tournament. The seesaw charts are often also sawtooth, at least for middling players -- like me. It seems like players with sawtooth charts (periods of mostly wins alternating with periods of mostly losses) may be reflecting this even if the range of opponents' rankings that they choose to play does not change. In tournaments, most of us get a bunch of better and a bunch of worse opponents. We might tend to pay more attention to games we are winning early (a hypothesis) and slow down on the games that are not at that stage, taking more time on analysis. People who do this will tend to put off their losses off for a while, while racking up some early wins. Then they run out of games they are winning and have to deal with the rest. That makes a sawtooth which is tempered by other factors. The sawtooth is more pronounced if they are playing fewer games.
my guess is if someone is defeating a certain level of ranked opponents, after a time they will choose to start playing players at a higher level. At some point, they will stop winning and start losing since they are playing better players. After they lose a bit, they drop back down to win a bit, then back up. Thus my non-scientific reasoning for the seesaw charts.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12469
01 Feb 11
Originally posted by kwojtaszThat's certainly part of it. I'm sure it's part of my up-and-down, and I've only been up and down twice or so. But another part must be that we're humans. None of us (well, almost...) is a chess machine. We have not just our good days and bad days, but our good months and bad months. We fall ill, we have problems in the family, we get a new job, we fall in love... and our chess suffers. Then all of that passes, and our chess picks up again.
my guess is if someone is defeating a certain level of ranked opponents, after a time they will choose to start playing players at a higher level. At some point, they will stop winning and start losing since they are playing better players. After they lose a bit, they drop back down to win a bit, then back up. Thus my non-scientific reasoning for the seesaw charts.
Richard
01 Feb 11
Originally posted by sonhousewhere's the 'like' button ?
You are from the Bahama's? Which Island? I worked on Andros at AUTEC years ago, lived in Cokley town, at the time when I had to take a boat across Fresh Creek at 5 am and back at something like 5 pm. Any other time, the boatman, called "Premier' had to be bribed with a fifth of rum. I understand they built a bridge there now. I really loved that place. I to ...[text shortened]... osed to get to around zero F tonight and there is about 6 inches of snow on the ground.....
great story ;-)