|
|
|
Topic: average opponents' rating...
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
| sir, statistics are statistics. so far, nobody has reacted negatively except you |
I wasn't negative to the idea, you missunderstood me. I just need to understand the usefulness of a feature before I put it into action. You are right, statistics are statistics, but some can be misleading or difficult to understand so what's the point in showing them?
And actually, from all ideas I've heard yours is the one that makes more sense to me. 
|
|
|
sir miguel, i apologize for having misunderstood your point...now i know where we're driving at.
ok, let me further expound the usefulness of the OPPONENTS' AVE. RATING for average chessplayers' imminent curiosity. let's assume that the following are the top 3 players of the site:
W L D RATING AVE.OPP.RATING
kasparov 20 1 1 2400 2299
anand 100 33 12 2350 2005
leko 90 3 4 2300 1744
a curious player would readily ask "how on earth that kasparov stands at no. 1 spot?".... "how come anand who collected 100 wins only stand at no.2?"... "how come leko with a good percentage and more wins is relegated only at no.3?"
all the answers are given by the above statistics and, i think, are self-explanatory...
another scenario would be... PLAYER A and PLAYER B has an identical rating, let's say 2000. this alone does not mean that both have identical playing strength too. by referring to their respective win-loss-draw record, you'll not find the exact answer. of course, the stronger player shall be the one who has played a tougher oppositions.
best regards....
|
|
|
One thing that bothers me is that this average opponent rating doesn't mean much by itself, people will compare these numbers between players and that really doesn't tell you anything.
I'm thinking that what this number really tells you is if you play stronger or weaker players than you, correct? Then we can convert this information into a ratio. This new metric will be 0 when the average opponent rating is equal to your own rating. It will be negative if the AOR is lower than your rating and positive if it is higher. I haven't thought out all the details, but we can make it be something like (AOR - rating) / 100, so you will get 1 point for each 100 points above or below your own rating.
To me this looks much more understandable than the plain AOR. What do you guys think?
Miguel
|
|
|
Will it consider the rating of your opponent when you played them, or the current rating of the opponent? Sometimes ratings drop drastically when a person quits a website while having several games still ongoing which they then lose on time.
Also, it is hard to judge anything from a provisional rating, many of my games have been against a player who was rated about 2500 provisional when I started playing him, now he is at about 1930 with an established rating. While it looks like I am only playing those who are rated much less than me, I went into the games thinking I was playing someone rated much higher than myself.
I'd be more interested in seeing the realtime chess stuff you are working on get the attention as opposed to ratings stuff, but then I don't put much stock in online chess ratings since it is impossible to compare them to true FIDE or USCF type ratings. I mean my rating here is obviously a grossly over-inflated joke compared to what I would be rated USCF. Even at chessworld.net which has over 20,000 members I am rated 1779 established. I'm not egotistical enough to think any of these are accurate numbers.
Whatever. Its a great site, Miguel. My favorite aspect is that it loads much quicker than anywhere else I play.
|
|
|
| Will it consider the rating of your opponent when you played them, or the current rating of the opponent? |
I think it will be the rating at the time the game ended. Unfinished games will not be taken into account.
I also have a problem with provisional ratings, those can inflate or deflate the average very easily, I'm tempted to only use established ratings for this calculation. Opinions?
|
| Previous 1 2 3 4 Next |
|
|
|
