Originally posted by ItalyBoyBlue I'm an engineering student who takes upper division math classes for fun because I love math. I don't need to be lectured by you two. If you don't believe me look at the formula, read about the formula, and try to think about real life - OTHERWISE F@*! OFF - I am right, there is a difference and if you can't figure out why then go ahead and not post on this string. You're useless ignorant feedback isn't helping anyone...
Don't try and pull the "I know more math than you do" card on me. I'm an engineering student as well. I've also spent a decent amount of time modelling behaviour of the ELO formula for various things such as what rating becomes if a player of true rating 1800 plays nothing but players of rating (true and actual) of 1400. The answer? 1800. And what happens if the same player switched and started playing against players of true and actual rating 2000? Still 1800.
The strength of the opponents shouldn't matter (unless you are reaching your floor or ceiling against that opposition [around 700 difference]), against weaker opposition you win more games but get less points per win.
While you may argue that players whose true rating differs from their actual rating skew everyone's ratings the system is based so that any player not playing at their rating level quickly returns to their true play level by taking points from others (who would then take points from others and so on) or giving points to others depending on which way they need to shift. The rating pool changes slightly but order is quickly restored.
You mention a single match as evidence that the ELO system is flawed. But you surely know that the ELO difference will give the average long term behaviour and doesn't claim to be able to predict the results of a single game?
Originally posted by ItalyBoyBlue I'm not wrong. You guys are telling me that if two people were to play chess until both of their ratings stabilized at about a 1400 rating but one did it playing 1200's and the other playing 1800's that those two players are of equal strength?!?!? I gaurantee you you're wrong.
Do the maths on how these two different 1500s get to where they are and get back to us.
Originally posted by ItalyBoyBlue I'm an engineering student who takes upper division math classes for fun because I love math. I don't need to be lectured by you two. If you don't believe me look at the formula, read about the formula, and try to think about real life - OTHERWISE F@*! OFF - I am right, there is a difference and if you can't figure out why then go ahead and not post on this string. You're useless ignorant feedback isn't helping anyone...
Looks like you'll be failing "upper division math" this year.
Originally posted by ItalyBoyBlue I'm an engineering student who takes upper division math classes for fun because I love math. I don't need to be lectured by you two.
Then lecture me. As a demonstration of your mathematical prowess, walk me through a proof of the central limit theorem, explaining each step in your own words.
Originally posted by ItalyBoyBlue IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NUMBERS AND CAN'T BE DESCRIBED BY ELO - however an average opponent rating could provide insight.
If you ever get bored of recreational upper division math, you should try some upper division critical thinking.
You are suggesting using Elo numbers to describe something that can't be described using Elo numbers.
Originally posted by ItalyBoyBlue If not then just stop posting and ignore the statistic if it is ever implemented.
Suppose the site decides to implement your idea.
Use your upper division mathematical expertise to defend your choice of using an arithmetic mean instead of a geometric mean in the context of Elo ratings.
Originally posted by ItalyBoyBlue I'm an engineering student who takes upper division math classes for fun because I love math. I don't need to be lectured by you two.
I could out-math you using a broken pencil with a dull tip with no eraser.
If it's not a big hassle for Russ why not give him his new toy?
Like most others on this thread I see little point in being able to see this statistic, but who knows how many other users there are that are just as keen to see this kind of information?
Originally posted by davidmacc If it's not a big hassle for Russ why not give him his new toy?
Because it's idiotic and fosters ignorance and misunderstanding by catering to the misconceptions of the simple-minded. If that statistic is provided, the site may as well also publish a system for optimal roulette play.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Because it's idiotic and fosters ignorance and misunderstanding by catering to the misconceptions of the simple-minded. If that statistic is provided, the site may as well also publish a system for optimal roulette play.
Providing an average will foster ignorance???
At a quick glance I can see statistics for Games Played, Won, Lost, Drawn, In Progress, Moves (Total), Moves This Month, and my highest rating in the last 30 days. Should I desist from looking at these lest my ignorance increase to the point where I find it necessary to insult others, and invoke irrelevant analogies?
Originally posted by davidmacc Providing an average will foster ignorance???
At a quick glance I can see statistics for Games Played, Won, Lost, Drawn, In Progress, Moves (Total), Moves This Month, and my highest rating in the last 30 days. Should I desist from looking at these lest my ignorance increase to the point where I find it necessary to insult others, and invoke irrelevant analogies?
If you would be thus provoked, it might be best to abstain, yes.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles If you would be thus provoked, it might be best to abstain, yes.
Doctor scribbles,
Most of what you have posted is both incoherent and immature. There is no drawback to having this statistic posted despite the fact that it is obvious you are unable to comprehend its usefulness in showing rating inflation/surpression (which can and does exist). I think it'd be best if you abstained in posting your wayward, irrelevent insights. They really aren't helping anybody.
Originally posted by ItalyBoyBlue Doctor scribbles,
Most of what you have posted is both incoherent and immature. There is no drawback to having this statistic posted despite the fact that it is obvious you are unable to comprehend its usefulness in showing rating inflation/surpression (which can and does exist). I think it'd be best if you abstained in posting your wayward, irrelevent insights. They really aren't helping anybody.
ItalyBoyBlue,
You are a retard. I challenge you to an objectively judged math contest.
Average opponent rating...
28 Sep '06 10:21
Back to Top