Originally posted by Ragnorak
As requested by me before, could you provide the maths as to how this statistic would be of any use whatsoever? Show us what percentage of games a 1500 would have to win against exclusively 1200s to maintain 1500 rating, and what percentage of games a 1500 needs to win against exclusively 1800s to maintain a 1500 rating.
Also, can you explain how this s your reason for needing this stat keeps changing.
Do the maths, get back to me.
D
Ok, I did miss this post thanks to the numerous other rediculous posts I was distracted by. I will try to address all of the points in this comment. I will not waste my time doing the so called "maths" but I will submit you would only have to win a small fraction of games against 1800 players and only have to not lose only a small fraction of games against 1000 players to maintain your 1400 rating. This much is obvious.
Rag, is right that it only takes the throwing of a few games against low level opponents to greatly reduce your rating. Because of this the average opponent rating should be kept to about the last 20-25 completed games or so. The low ratings of those players will greatly reduce the average. Also this system would be more useful to indicate a rating that has been inflated/surpressed habitually rather than intentionally as purposed by Rag because their max rating within the last thirty days and all of their ratings over the last 300 games are already on display.
You may be right that there is only one best move to make. However that move may be relatively none better than many other different moves that lead to many other different lines of play. If someone where to always be able to assert the best move from any position they would never lose and chess itself would finally be unraveled. Luckily even the best super computers are unable to perform this task. Chess is not yet like checkers or tick tack toe where one player will win 100% of the time with the right strategy and the choice whether or not to go first. This is because the number of different moves and the number of different countermoves for every move and so on keep the number of different possibilites of play in chess truly astronomical.
Read the books written by the best chess players who have ever lived. They agree that much of chess is psychological, no matter how objective we try to keep it. The internet keeps chess very impersonal. For games like poker, internet play is absurd; as a large part of the game is judging your opponent's visual reaction to the game. In chess there is an element of this as well no matter how small. Since we all don't know each other like professional poker players and chess masters typically do this statistic would help indicate a player's character.
I do not believe that this implementation would be a drag on the servers. They would simply record the rating of your opponent at the time the game has begun and as that game finished it would be introduced into a log file and that file would be updated with every game using the simple mean formula and the 25 four digit numbers it would store. All this would drag down the servers? It would be certainly have to be then the LAST STRAW that broke the camels back, just a small few lines of code lumped in with many other larger lines of code truly responsible for slowing the server down.
Life is too complicated to be fully explainable mathematically. Thats what statistical formulas are all about. They do their best to describe certain facets of real situations. The ELO formula seeks to describe a player's potentional, and while it works very well in tournament play it can still be misleading in internet play.
Again I see no reason how the statistic would harm the functionality of the site, and if you think it is useless then ignore it if it is ever implemented. If it is ever put to a vote, vote against it. But please do not continuously post non-specific complaints, one is enough. This forum is for discussions not posting matches.
I apologize to Rag and everyone else besides DS for my profanity and my short tirades. I was initially very annoyed by the constant repitition of invalid statements and rude remarks that were littering this string.