Average opponent rating...

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
[b]Ok, I did miss this post thanks to the numerous other rediculous posts I was distracted by.
I've already shown you the correct way to spell ridiculous once on this page. At least make some effort to spell correctly.

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 ...[text shortened]... this thread have been yours. The only moderated posts in this thread were yours.

You asked me to adress all of Rag's questions and comments and then criticize that the answers have nothing to do with the topic??? That's really fair. You criticize my logic without reason. You ignore the justifications shown in my previous posts. You accuse me of being the only one making rude remarks. Check out DOCTOR SCRIBBLES.

AGAIN RIDICULOUS RIDICULOUS RIDICULOUS SPELLED CORRECTLY OR INCORRECTLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENTS

This was my string. You've shown that you're opposed to my idea, thank you. You have not coherently responded as to why. You refuse to agree to disagree. Please stop posting.

Originally posted by ItalyBoyBlue
This was my string. You've shown that you're opposed to my idea, thank you. You have not coherently responded as to why. You refuse to agree to disagree. Please stop posting.

Actually I believe that I, and other posters, have shown quite clearly that the proposed average would add nothing at all to the site. The level of a player's opponents doesn't affect whether a player is over or under rated.
And now let's talk about how you've put forward an idea and then asked everyone who disagrees to stop disagreeing and get out of your THREAD (it's not a string stupid). Well guess what. You posted the thread and unless you petition the mods to delete or close it I'm free to post in your THREAD about how your idea is stupid. If you didn't want dissenting opinions about your idea then you shouldn't have posted this THREAD.

I haven't asked everyone who disagrees to stop posting. I asked you and DS to stop posting. You continue to post and repost the same undeveloped opinion. Anyone who reads this thread will understand you're against the idea. You keep posting just to bicker with me and to keep getting reactive statements from me, and I refuse to continue. It's people like you that ruin these forums. I hope someday you realize that arguing over the internet is like running in the special olympics. Even if you win you're still retarded. Your very negative opinion is shown in NUMEROUS comments on this thread, my arguments no matter how logically derived and laid out for you won't change your mind and that's fine. We disagree, and that's ok sweetheart. Now why not stop trying to get the last word and allow other people to comment. I'm done with this.

Originally posted by ItalyBoyBlue
my arguments no matter how logically derived and laid out for you won't change your mind

That's the thing. Your argument has no trace of logic. There is no mathmatical reason for an average such as the one you suggest. There is no information that it gives that isn't already provided. Maybe if you actually tried to provide a logical arguement you'd realise for yourself that your suggestion is flawed. Actually I'd love to see you try. Use math. Don't try and dumb it down for me, I'll understand it. Of course if you can't then that's fine too. Just don't say that you have when you clearly haven't.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
[b]Ok, I did miss this post thanks to the numerous other rediculous posts I was distracted by.
I've already shown you the correct way to spell ridiculous once on this page. At least make some effort to spell correctly.

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 ...[text shortened]... this thread have been yours. The only moderated posts in this thread were yours.

Great post.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
And the other guy sounds like some idiot from Missouri, a region whose low intellect is surpassed only by Italy and a few small islands in the South Pacific.

Dr Scribbles,

You continue to combine your entirely reasonable argument about the usefulness of an average opponent rating with a childishness and lack of courtesy that does neither you, nor your argument any credit.

Perhaps you could set aside your mathematical studies for a short time and focus on the acceptable parameters for sensible human-human interaction.

Originally posted by davidmacc
Dr Scribbles,

You continue to combine your entirely reasonable argument about the usefulness of an average opponent rating with a childishness and lack of courtesy that does neither you, nor your argument any credit.

Perhaps you could set aside your mathematical studies for a short time and focus on the acceptable parameters for sensible human-human interaction.

Hear! Hear!

Originally posted by davidmacc
Dr Scribbles,

You continue to combine your entirely reasonable argument about the usefulness of an average opponent rating with a childishness and lack of courtesy that does neither you, nor your argument any credit.

Perhaps you could set aside your mathematical studies for a short time and focus on the acceptable parameters for sensible human-human interaction.

Sorry, but that's just my style. It's something I have invested a great deal of effort in cultivating, rather than a flaw that I wish to eliminate. It would be a shame to just throw it away after having worked so hard for it.

Originally posted by ItalyBoyBlue
I hope someday you realize that arguing over the internet is like running in the special olympics. Even if you win you're still retarded.

This is a very offensive statement - the majority of people who enter the special olympics are physically disabled and not retarded as you say. And even if they were retarded it is still a stupid thing to say.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
This is a very offensive statement - the majority of people who enter the special olympics are [b]physically disabled and not retarded as you say. And even if they were retarded it is still a stupid thing to say.[/b]

There are some disabled people, where if they ran in the special olympics, it'd be a bloody Miracle.

How many Medalas do you have Little boy blue ?

Originally posted by davidmacc
Dr Scribbles,

You continue to combine your entirely reasonable argument about the usefulness of an average opponent rating with a childishness and lack of courtesy that does neither you, nor your argument any credit.

Perhaps you could set aside your mathematical studies for a short time and focus on the acceptable parameters for sensible human-human interaction.

About time someone else said something... Thank-you.

I don't agree with these guys but I don't have a problem disagreeing with them or with their opinions in general. Why can't people just be civil?

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
This is a very offensive statement - the majority of people who enter the special olympics are [b]physically disabled and not retarded as you say. And even if they were retarded it is still a stupid thing to say.[/b]

Offensive, yes. A joke I heard a long time ago, I'm sorry if it offended anyone. It seemed prudent at the time. I don't have a problem with offensive humor and I also hold no prejudices against the disabled, or anyone else for that matter.

Are you still arguing about this?
Is this really so interesting?
Reminds me of my childhood in the sandbox...

Originally posted by ItalyBoyBlue
Offensive, yes. A joke I heard a long time ago, I'm sorry if it offended anyone. It seemed prudent at the time. I don't have a problem with offensive humor and I also hold no prejudices against the disabled, or anyone else for that matter.

Yet you reported DS as a racist due to a joke about Italy?

D

Originally posted by ItalyBoyBlue
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 agai ...[text shortened]... onstant repitition of invalid statements and rude remarks that were littering this string.

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.

Ok, so if the 1400 wins a very high percentage of his games against exclusively 1000 players, then maybe he will never improve but he is still a 1400 player.

If the 1400 player plays only 1800 opponents, and learns something from them, then he is no longer going to be a 1400 player, he's going to be a 1450, or a 1500. Why do you assume that this player would learn better chess, and yet would remain at 1400?

Why is maths in italics, BTW?

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.

This seems to be an afterthought of your original suggestion. Surely, if you glance at the graph and see a steep decline in the last few games, then you assume that you're playing the player at the top of the graph.

Also this system would be more useful to indicate a rating that has been inflated/surpressed habitually rather than intentionally as purposed by Rag

How does the average of your opponent's opponents do this?

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.

You must have missed my point. If YOU find what you think is the best move, are you going to change your mind if you think you are playing somebody who has reached his rating by only playing 1000s?

But please do not continuously post non-specific complaints, one is enough. This forum is for discussions not posting matches.

What non-specific complaint did I make? You keep saying that the idea is the bee's knees. I disagree with you. Why should I let you misinform people who may think your idea is great, without even understanding it. This is not a forum purely for people who agree with you.

And on another point, what percentage of subscribers do you think only restrict themselves to playing a certain rating? How often do you think you'd meet them considering you only play tournament games? Never would be the answer, seeing as if they only exclusively play a certain rating, that means that they only play open invites, never tournament/clan games.

Its a poor idea and adds nothing to the site. Lets move on.

D