22 Nov 09
Originally posted by trev33I really think having played over 6000 games that the graph is a very good indicator of the players playing strenght...If you go from front to finish you will see where the rating is the biggest percentage of the time. I find it to be quite accurate.
i'd like to see somewhere the highest rated player someone has beaten and the lowest rated person they've lost to. would help when setting up clan challenges and looking at graphs i think.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19047
22 Nov 09
Originally posted by Very Rustynot everyone has played over 6000 games.
I really think having played over 6000 games that the graph is a very good indicator of the players playing strenght...If you go from front to finish you will see where the rating is the biggest percentage of the time. I find it to be quite accurate.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19047
22 Nov 09
Originally posted by Very Rustyyou've almost made more move this month than i'm made with this account 😵 we'll have to get a rematch of our games sometime.
You don't need that many to judge where a person is. Hell I have lost more games than many on this site have played...lol..
but some people get quite high rating by only beating up on low rank opponents, i'd like a stat that shows that.
22 Nov 09
Originally posted by trev33If we go for that it should eclude wins on time. I have a 2000+ on my list which in no way reflects my strength.
i'd like to see somewhere the highest rated player someone has beaten and the lowest rated person they've lost to. would help when setting up clan challenges and looking at graphs i think.
And as some would point out sandbaggers coming back can also heavily distort matters I think I lost to a 700 somewhere.
So if you know I won against a 2000 and lost to a 700 what will you learn? That I am a sandbagger?
22 Nov 09
I was wondering if some of the (new) stats could actually be made 'private' and seen only by the player him/herself. Not that otherwise it would be too 'discrediting' or 'embarrassing' , just reckon that not all the stats are of 'public' relevance.
For instance, I'd like to see, out of interest, how many rating points I had gained/lost due to 'time out' for I think I've lost more than I had won.
22 Nov 09
Originally posted by trev33As Ponderable pointed out the stat idea doesnt really say anything.
but some people get quite high rating by only beating up on low rank opponents, i'd like a stat that shows that.
Why dont you look at "Opponent Avg. Rating" and compare it to the players "Avarage Rating"?
22 Nov 09
Originally posted by trev33I have only made 3883..WOW...that is a lot of moves isn't it!
you've almost made more move this month than i'm made with this account 😵 we'll have to get a rematch of our games sometime.
but some people get quite high rating by only beating up on low rank opponents, i'd like a stat that shows that.
You are absolutely correct there are those that do beat up on the lower rated to up their rating, but the percenage isn't that big. " I take it these are the people whos butts you want to kick".
I really think the most accurate way is just to run the curser from beginning of graph to the end, see what rating comes up the most times, and that will be very close to the rating of that player.
I love that feature as it also tells you what rating they played against, so you do learn quite a lot actually.
22 Nov 09
Originally posted by PonderableThe thing about excluding wins on time is that in lost positions players will just let their time run out. This happens more than you would think. It is surprising how bad of a sport chess players can be.
If we go for that it should eclude wins on time. I have a 2000+ on my list which in no way reflects my strength.
And as some would point out sandbaggers coming back can also heavily distort matters I think I lost to a 700 somewhere.
So if you know I won against a 2000 and lost to a 700 what will you learn? That I am a sandbagger?
I wouldn't consider you a Sandbagger with one win against a 2000 player a lost to a 700 player....Now if those numbers were quite high, then I suppose a finger or two would start to wag your way. One would still have to look at the reasons for it though such as time outs, and the other guy being the Sandbagger!