Does anyone care to calculate the percentile per group?
2400=3, 2300=1, 2200=23, 2100=39, 2000=73, 1900=140, 1800= 243, 1700=517, 1600=959, 1500=1603, 1400=2363, 1300=3277,
1200=3333, 1100=2899, 1000=1825, 900=896, 800=370, 700=86
600=22, 500=10, 400= 1 Total player count is 18683
Count not exact, but close.
1 edit
Over 24000.02%
Over 23000.01%
Over 22000.12%
Over 21000.21%
Over 20000.39%
Over 19000.75%
Over 18001.30%
Over 17002.77%
Over 16005.13%
Over 15008.58%
Over 140012.65%
Over 130017.54%
Over 120017.84%
Over 110015.52%
Over 10009.77%
Over 9004.80%
Over 8001.98%
Over 7000.46%
Over 6000.12%
Over 5000.05%
Over 4000.01%
Originally posted by Mad Mac MacMadWhat are the percentages? They can't be "over", Is it more like 2200-2299 0.12%?
Over 24000.02%
Over 23000.01%
Over 22000.12%
Over 21000.21%
Over 20000.39%
Over 19000.75%
Over 18001.30%
Over 17002.77%
Over 16005.13%
Over 15008.58%
Over 140012.65%
Over 130017.54%
Over 120017.84%
Over 110015.52%
Over 10009.77%
Over 9004.80%
Over 8001.98%
Over 7000.46%
Over 6000.12%
Over 5000.05%
Over 4000.01%
D
Originally posted by davidgraysonpercentile is cumulative, these are just the populations for each 100 point range as far as I can see. so to get the percentiles you'd need to add every group below the one you're processing.
Does anyone care to calculate the percentile per group?
2400=3, 2300=1, 2200=23, 2100=39, 2000=73, 1900=140, 1800= 243, 1700=517, 1600=959, 1500=1603, 1400=2363, 1300=3277,
1200=3333, 1100=2899, 1000=1825, 900=896, 800=370, 700=86
600=22, 500=10, 400= 1 Total player count is 18683
Count not exact, but close.
just pointing it out, because it confused me. as I'm not in the top 1% with the rating 1958, even though it at first looked like that according to these figures and the related percentages.
Originally posted by wormwoodActually I think you are, or actually just on the verge of it: the player table puts you at #190 out of 18580 active players.
just pointing it out, because it confused me. as I'm not in the top 1% with the rating 1958, even though it at first looked like that according to these figures and the related percentages.
I wonder why the distribution here is so different what from what I would consider "normal". e.g. on ICC a rating of 1600 standard would put you pretty much dead in the middle of active players, but here a 1600 rating puts you in the top 10%.
Originally posted by incandenzaThat struck me as well. I think probably it is that this site is more accessible to beginners and casual players, so you see a lot of under 1200 say ratings that you don't see on the more "hardcore" sites like FICS or ICC.
Actually I think you are, or actually just on the verge of it: the player table puts you at #190 out of 18580 active players.
I wonder why the distribution here is so different what from what I would consider "normal". e.g. on ICC a rating of 1600 standard would put you pretty much dead in the middle of active players, but here a 1600 rating puts you in the top 10%.
And on FICs, for instance, the lower rated players seem better booked up there than here, and more tactically aware. The first is kind of odd, since you have access to books and databases here that are prohibited on FICS or ICC.
1 edit
Originally posted by incandenzaThe key there is active players. 1200 is close enough to most median averages that it is usually used as the initial rating. From there one can probably assume that the more successful you are, the more likely you are to continue to play the game. Therefor your common player who knows basic mates and tactics and does well at not hanging pieces (1300+) will stick with the game while there will be lots of turnover among the people who try it out with little success.
Actually I think you are, or actually just on the verge of it: the player table puts you at #190 out of 18580 active players.
I wonder why the distribution here is so different what from what I would consider "normal". e.g. on ICC a rating of 1600 standard would put you pretty much dead in the middle of active players, but here a 1600 rating puts you in the top 10%.
Thats my theory anyway.
2 edits
here are the percentiles. I zero-padded the number of players above each cut-off rating (2nd column) in order to get straight colums. because the forums cuts off all whitespace except the first one.
for clarification, the 3rd column is the percentile on exactly on the cut-off rating, not including the 99 points above it.
n=18580
2400+0000399.983 th percentile
2300+0000499.978 th
2200+0002799.85
2100+0006699.64
2000+0014199.24
1900+0028598.47
1800+0053997.10
1700+0102494.49
1600+0195289.49
1500+0352781.02
1400+0589668.27
1300+0913150.86
1200+1246832.90
1100+1536817.29
1000+1719607.49
1 edit
Originally posted by zebanoNot sure I'm following you completely, but I'll just point out that the RHP player table only includes active players as well. Although, being that it takes 100 days to become inactive, maybe the looser definition of "active" is a factor.
The key there is active players. 1200 is close enough to most median averages that it is usually used as the initial rating. From there one can probably assume that the more successful you are, the more likely you are to continue to play the game. Therefor your common player who knows basic mates and tactics and does well at not hanging pieces (1300+) will st ...[text shortened]... e game while there will be lots of turnover among the people who try it out with little success.
The other thing is, the table doesn't include provisional players. It seems to complete 20 rated games you have to be somewhat dedicated, at least in the beginning. To get into the table to skew things, you have to finish the 20 and then decide to leave.
So, yeah, I still don't really get it...
I wonder how much of a difference it would make if you could count only people who had moved, say, in the last week instead of the last 100 days. Maybe that's where most of the difference is coming from.
Originally posted by scandiumno, it's just the different scaling in different rating systems. 1200s on ICC are far better players than 1200's here. it's just that the 'ruler' (eg. the rating) that the players are measured against is not the same. (not to even mention they measure different things). it's like comparing BCF to FIDE without conversion.
That struck me as well. I think probably it is that this site is more accessible to beginners and casual players, so you see a lot of under 1200 say ratings that you don't see on the more "hardcore" sites like FICS or ICC.
And on FICs, for instance, the lower rated players seem better booked up there than here, and more tactically aware. The first is kin ...[text shortened]... of odd, since you have access to books and databases here that are prohibited on FICS or ICC.
a 1200 on FICS will stay in book (and if he goes off book it's deliberate), while the 1200 here is likely to ask: "what's that 'book' you guys keep talking about?"