# Estimated "True" Rating

rbmorris
Site Ideas 13 Sep '06 22:40
1. rbmorris
Vampyroteuthis
13 Sep '06 22:40
I just had a thought. Maybe it's a good one, maybe not. I know in a chess game, it's fairly easy to keep a numerical score based on the piece value. (e.g. If I'm up a pawn and a knight in a particular game, you could say that I'm ahead by 4 points) At the moment, I have a lot of games going. Some of these games I'm winning, and some I'm losing. Anyway, I was thinking it might be kind of cool to know my "estimated true rating". In other words, if I resigned all the games I'm losing at the moment and my opponent resigned all the games I'm winning at the moment, what would my rating be?

I think the formula would be fairly simple. Take all the games I'm winning and (assuming I win all of them) add up the estimated ratings gains (A). Then take all the games I'm losing and do the same (B). Then A-B="Estimated True Rating".

Would anyone else find this statistic helpful or interesting?
2. Hindstein
Finish Him!!!
13 Sep '06 23:11
A good idea, but I suppose that a material advantage doesn't always mean that you are winning the game - sacrificing a minor piece for a postional advantage is commonplace....
3. Suzianne
Misfit Queen
14 Sep '06 00:08
Originally posted by rbmorris
I just had a thought. Maybe it's a good one, maybe not. I know in a chess game, it's fairly easy to keep a numerical score based on the piece value. (e.g. If I'm up a pawn and a knight in a particular game, you could say that I'm ahead by 4 points) At the moment, I have a lot of games going. Some of these games I'm winning, and some I'm losing. Anyway ...[text shortened]... d True Rating".

Would anyone else find this statistic helpful or interesting?
I wonder what the load on the server would be to do this calculation every time someone displays their 'My Games' page?

Or would this be trivial?
4. rbmorris
Vampyroteuthis
14 Sep '06 00:25
Originally posted by Hindstein
A good idea, but I suppose that a material advantage doesn't always mean that you are winning the game - sacrificing a minor piece for a postional advantage is commonplace....
Right. It wouldn't be perfect. But it would be the best guess at the time. The more games you're playing, the more accurate it would probably be from a statistical standpoint.

Yes, I could win a game by sac'ing a piece. Then again, so could one of my opponents.
5. Ragnorak
14 Sep '06 00:27
Originally posted by rbmorris
Right. It wouldn't be perfect. But it would be the best guess at the time. The more games you're playing, the more accurate it would probably be from a statistical standpoint.

Yes, I could win a game by sac'ing a piece. Then again, so could one of my opponents.
Sorry, I don't see the use.

D
6. XanthosNZ
Cancerous Bus Crash
14 Sep '06 04:24
That ouroboros guy, he's thought of everything. And there's no load on the server as all calculations act only the sent page after it has been sent and run on your computer.

http://members.shaw.ca/ouroboros/RHP/piececount.user.js
7. 14 Sep '06 06:59
I keep track of my games by having a list with a "+", a "-" or a "=" if I'm up, down or equal in material respectively. This mean that I with a glance can decide if I have more plus-games, then my rating will raise, if I have more minus-games, then my rating will go down.

However, I've lost a lot of plus-games due to various reasons, but also won minus-games by opponents blunders. In average, this method works, but I cannot make any true prognosis of my future ratings.

I don't think Russ and his staff should put a lot of energy of this idea. He has enough to do on his list anyway.
8. 09 Oct '06 20:49
this sites great but is it open to abuse? Are chess computers getting to the stage where they can beat a human, if so how can it be policed? any ideas?
9. 15 Oct '06 06:23
If something vital like having one's rating shown with forum posts is not a priority, then you can guess your idea is further down the pecking order.
10. 19 Oct '06 20:02
Originally posted by rbmorris
I just had a thought. Maybe it's a good one, maybe not. I know in a chess game, it's fairly easy to keep a numerical score based on the piece value. (e.g. If I'm up a pawn and a knight in a particular game, you could say that I'm ahead by 4 points) At the moment, I have a lot of games going. Some of these games I'm winning, and some I'm losing. Anyway ...[text shortened]... d True Rating".

Would anyone else find this statistic helpful or interesting?
Alternatively, it could allow you to enter predictions yourself for each game, or a subset of your games. If there are 5 you know you'll win and 3 you expect to lose, you could mark them as such and request an estimated rating. Also, of course, you could mark games you expect to draw as draws.

You would not want to automatically count "even" games as draws becuase that would give you lots of points if you're in the first few moves against much better players. But there are some "even" games you could reasonably guess will turn out to be draws.
11. XanthosNZ
Cancerous Bus Crash
20 Oct '06 00:06
Originally posted by z00t
If something vital like having one's rating shown with forum posts is not a priority, then you can guess your idea is further down the pecking order.
Why is that vital?
12. 20 Oct '06 00:55
Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Why is that vital?
That's the most non-vital thing I've seen in this forum.
13. 22 Oct '06 10:41
Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Why is that vital?
On a page with 15 posts I have to click on 15 profiles (to see each contributors rating) just to follow the conversation. This is a great waste of time and an un-necessary load on the servers. Rather than

Name: z00t
Joined : 13 Apr '06
Moves : 1587
Location: Blank

I would prefer to have

Name: z00t
Joined : 13 Apr '06
Rating : 1587

Then errors like those in would not manifest, and I would not have to click on 15 profiles every time I click on a thread. I could also avoid threads by the numerous forum-only members who have been "hanging around" a wee bit lately.

Kapish?
14. 22 Oct '06 11:21
Originally posted by z00t
On a page with 15 posts I have to click on 15 profiles (to see each contributors rating) just to follow the conversation. This is a great waste of time and an un-necessary load on the servers. Rather than

Name: z00t
Joined : 13 Apr '06
Moves : 1587
Location: Blank

I would prefer to have

Name: z00t
Joined : 13 Apr '06
Rating : 1587

Then errors ...[text shortened]... the numerous forum-only members who have been "hanging around" a wee bit lately.

Kapish?
Why do you NEED to know what someone's chess rating is "follow the conversation". Just may be of interest in the 'chess only' forum, but anywhere else it is completely irrelevant.
Do you believe only high rated chess players are worthy of listening to?
15. 22 Oct '06 12:16
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Why do you NEED to know what someone's chess rating is "follow the conversation". Just may be of interest in the 'chess only' forum, but anywhere else it is completely irrelevant.
Do you believe only high rated chess players are worthy of listening to?
All chess players are worthy of listening to but the limited information in the forum should be relevant. Imagine if your driving licence had irrelevant information such as the size of your feet meaning you had to go home a get picture id every time your driving licence is required?

What makes moves/location or date joined more important than one's rating that they are included while rating is not? Why then don’t we have size of feet or whether you had cereals or toast in the morning, as forum information?