16 Nov 07
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.
16 Nov 07
1 edit
Over 2400 0.02%
Over 2300 0.01%
Over 2200 0.12%
Over 2100 0.21%
Over 2000 0.39%
Over 1900 0.75%
Over 1800 1.30%
Over 1700 2.77%
Over 1600 5.13%
Over 1500 8.58%
Over 1400 12.65%
Over 1300 17.54%
Over 1200 17.84%
Over 1100 15.52%
Over 1000 9.77%
Over 900 4.80%
Over 800 1.98%
Over 700 0.46%
Over 600 0.12%
Over 500 0.05%
Over 400 0.01%
16 Nov 07
Originally posted by Mad Mac MacMadWhat are the percentages? They can't be "over", Is it more like 2200-2299 0.12%?
Over 2400 0.02%
Over 2300 0.01%
Over 2200 0.12%
Over 2100 0.21%
Over 2000 0.39%
Over 1900 0.75%
Over 1800 1.30%
Over 1700 2.77%
Over 1600 5.13%
Over 1500 8.58%
Over 1400 12.65%
Over 1300 17.54%
Over 1200 17.84%
Over 1100 15.52%
Over 1000 9.77%
Over 900 4.80%
Over 800 1.98%
Over 700 0.46%
Over 600 0.12%
Over 500 0.05%
Over 400 0.01%
D
16 Nov 07
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.
16 Nov 07
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%.
16 Nov 07
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.
16 Nov 07
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.
16 Nov 07
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+ 00003 99.983 th percentile
2300+ 00004 99.978 th
2200+ 00027 99.85
2100+ 00066 99.64
2000+ 00141 99.24
1900+ 00285 98.47
1800+ 00539 97.10
1700+ 01024 94.49
1600+ 01952 89.49
1500+ 03527 81.02
1400+ 05896 68.27
1300+ 09131 50.86
1200+ 12468 32.90
1100+ 15368 17.29
1000+ 17196 07.49
16 Nov 07
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.
16 Nov 07
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?"