|
|
|
Topic: an additional column in the members list
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
Take a look at the formula:
Performance = [Wins - Loses + 0.5*Draws] / Number of Games
This is a true mesaure of performance and reflects upon the true strength of the player. Seeing that number to me, means that I can either play a winner (Performance very close to 1), a loser (Negative Performance leaning to -1) or a drawer (Performance close to 0.5) A value of zero means that the guy/gal loses just as often as he/she wins. In any case, this scale is something that I use to calculate who am I playing (well... not here as we haven't played enough games yet)... Could it be possible Miguel to add this performance measure on the members table?
|
|
|
I don't know, I think this value can be misleading. In my opinion it reflects more the strength of the opponents than that of the player. For instance, a lower value does not mean that this is a weak player, it just means that it played mostly against stronger players.
And also, I believe the formula should be either:
Performance = (Wins + 0.5 * Draws) / Number of Games (values are from 0 to 1)
or:
Performance = (Wins - Losses) / Number of Games (values are from -1 to 1)
depending on the range you want the value to be.
I would be interested to know what others think about this.
Miguel
|
|
|
I see it like Miguel does. A performance of -1 only means that the player lost every game recently played (and that could be only one). If this player choosed to challenge much stronger other players, you couldn't say anything about his playing strength from this value.
This is why the ELO-Rating has been invented, isn't it?
Martin
|
|
|
Miguel,
I like your formula better
| Performance = (Wins + 0.5 * Draws) / Number of Games (values are from 0 to 1) |
because it simply states the total number of points made out of a given number of games...
Yes... It makes a lot more sense now that I see it...
I know that the formula can be misleading because it doesn't take into account how strong the opponents are but, on the other hand, it states how often do you win.
We could improve the formula even more by taking into account the individual performance of the opponents. Like this:
Raw Performance = (Wins + 0.5*Draws)/Number of Games
Corrected Performance = Average (Raw Peformance + Opponents Raw Performance)
For example:
Bob played 10 games against A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of which he won 5, drew 3 and lost 2 (+5, =3, -2)
Bob's raw performance is:
Raw Performance = (5 + 0.5*3)/10 = 0.65
Are you following? GOOD!
Now, let us suppose that the raw performance of A, B, C, etc. are: 0.5, 0.45, 0.2, 0, 1, 0.7, 0.3, 0.7, 1, 0.6
Therefore:
Corrected performance = Average [ 0.65, 0.5, 0.45, 0.2, 0, 1, 0.7, 0.3, 0.7, 1, 0.6 ] = 0.59
I believe that this is a minor improvement on the formula and that had Bob had a very strong opposition hiw raw performance would have been compensated by his opponents' raw performance.
I know the purpose of the ELO rating but, in my opinion, is good to have an actual measure of how often do you win/lose/draw and consider that when facing an opponent (i.e., I would see the raw performance and the corrected performance of my future opponent to get a measure of who is he/she playing and how does he perform...)
If this is a difficult feature to set up forget I mentioned it 
|
|
|
Why not create a way to list the average rating of a players opponents as an indication of the strength of player played agaisnt.
This is used at another site i play at and it is a good indicator along with overall W/L/D record.
A section saying how many timeouts a player has had would be useful to
|
|
|
kstuart,
That sounds like an outstanding idea. The average rating of the opposition at the time of the game (i.e., not the current rating of the player.) I was also considering the silent partner ratio which is defined as:
Silent Partner Ratio = Games where a win on time was claimed / Total number of games
In short you have:
Average rating of the opposition
Corrected Performance
Silent Partner Ratio
Anyway... Just tossing ideas to improve the already excellent queenalice website...
|
|
|
|
|
