1. Standard memberKorch
    Chess Warrior
    Riga
    Joined
    05 Jan '05
    Moves
    24932
    25 Mar '08 12:29
    I think it would be not bad idea to include information about average opponent rating in players profile.
  2. Standard memberRamned
    The Rams
    Joined
    04 Sep '06
    Moves
    13491
    26 Mar '08 21:06
    Seconded
  3. Standard memberRobrobbie
    The Blues Boy
    Joined
    18 Jan '08
    Moves
    9229
    26 Mar '08 21:08
    good idea
  4. Subscribercoquette
    Already mated
    Omaha, Nebraska, USA
    Joined
    04 Jul '06
    Moves
    887499
    26 Mar '08 21:47
    good suggestion
  5. Standard memberneonpeon41
    The Conductor
    With the band
    Joined
    14 Jun '07
    Moves
    41110
    27 Mar '08 02:421 edit
    Originally posted by Korch
    I think it would be not bad idea to include information about average opponent rating in players profile.
    Thread 87048

    I think this is a good idea.

    np
  6. THORNINYOURSIDE
    Joined
    04 Sep '04
    Moves
    245624
    27 Mar '08 09:18
    Originally posted by Korch
    I think it would be not bad idea to include information about average opponent rating in players profile.
    Why?

    It is an irrelevant figure which can be horribly skewed.

    Lets assume that you play 25 players rated at 1200 and 25 rated at 2,000. This will give an average opponent rating of 1,600. Totally at odds with what you have played.

    Lets say you play some "dodgy" players whose ratings have dropped from 1900 to 1200 (timeouts etc). Have you played a 1900 rater or a 1200 rater?

    Just my 2p worth
  7. Joined
    31 Oct '03
    Moves
    17163
    27 Mar '08 11:08
    Originally posted by adramforall
    Why?

    It is an irrelevant figure which can be horribly skewed.

    Lets assume that you play 25 players rated at 1200 and 25 rated at 2,000. This will give an average opponent rating of 1,600. Totally at odds with what you have played.

    Lets say you play some "dodgy" players whose ratings have dropped from 1900 to 1200 (timeouts etc). Have you played a 1900 rater or a 1200 rater?

    Just my 2p worth
    We do not have to have this necessarily, I agree.
  8. Standard memberKorch
    Chess Warrior
    Riga
    Joined
    05 Jan '05
    Moves
    24932
    27 Mar '08 11:11
    Originally posted by adramforall
    Why?

    It is an irrelevant figure which can be horribly skewed.

    Lets assume that you play 25 players rated at 1200 and 25 rated at 2,000. This will give an average opponent rating of 1,600. Totally at odds with what you have played.

    Lets say you play some "dodgy" players whose ratings have dropped from 1900 to 1200 (timeouts etc). Have you played a 1900 rater or a 1200 rater?

    Just my 2p worth
    Similar objections can be addressed to rating system at all.
  9. Joined
    31 Oct '03
    Moves
    17163
    27 Mar '08 11:211 edit
    Originally posted by Korch
    Similar objections can be addressed to rating system at all.
    Let's add the "best win against" (won against highest rated player) stat too then.

    Also, worst loss---lost against lowest rated playa.
  10. Standard memberKorch
    Chess Warrior
    Riga
    Joined
    05 Jan '05
    Moves
    24932
    27 Mar '08 11:31
    Originally posted by kenan
    Let's add the "best win against" (won against highest rated player) stat too then.

    Also, worst loss---lost against lowest rated playa.
    I agree - its good idea.
  11. Amsterdam
    Joined
    04 Feb '06
    Moves
    48602
    27 Mar '08 12:25
    I do support some kind of average rating, but to use it at setting up clan challenges:

    Thread 82439
  12. Standard memberRamned
    The Rams
    Joined
    04 Sep '06
    Moves
    13491
    29 Mar '08 16:46
    Implement it, I'd say at least 75% support it.
  13. Joined
    07 Aug '06
    Moves
    80104
    11 Apr '08 13:31
    how about the moves per month as a moving base over the previous month from the current date

    a more valuable assessment of an opponents status of activity

    in essence an average over a month for say thirty days

    whereas at the moment, it only approaches this at the end of the month

    and could be a little irrelevant at the beginning




    and i still like the idea of stabilising 'ups and downs' via a tempering of scores based on moves per game, or some such....

    perhaps timeouts could also be a lesser drop in ones score, i've seen people leave as a consequence of a forced absence, then find a plummetted score as all being just a little too hard

    then those that remain on the site adversely affect normally scored individuals - further enhancing the fluctuations

    what about using a similar ranking as say tournament entry score as the relevant base to a game / game score




    just sitting thinking pondering......
  14. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    11 Apr '08 14:57
    It would be possible to be skewed, but could be an interesting statistic.

    I personally would like to be able to go to a game I played and see with the game the rating both me and my opponent were at when the game ended.

    I think this might be the case in my opponent, but my rating always shows my current rating.
  15. Joined
    28 Jun '01
    Moves
    36847
    11 Apr '08 17:00
    To elaborate on the average opponent rating, maybe some sort of graph to show how many of each level player you have played. Best win and worst loss are good ones too.
Back to Top