|
|
|
Topic: average opponents' rating...
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
In my opinion there is way to much emphysis put on statistics, ratings and such. Miguel correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this chess site was set up for people who enjoy playing chess and want to have fun doing so. And a little bit of advice for those people who are always bitching about finding a better way to get a more accurate rating.lighten up, play some chess and have some fun,
|
|
|
| lighten up, play some chess and have some fun |
Amen to that!
|
|
|
Sure , we 'll more hapiness if we enjoy with chess , and no worry with averages, ratings...
Pues eso: que disfrutaremos más del ajedrez si no nos preocupamos tanto de ratings, ELOS, i otras historias.
|
|
|
This thread is for features request and I believe that it is Miguel's prerrogative to deny them or implement them. However, I don't think that Mandaragit is being unreasonable or irrational in his request and coupled with the winning percentage the average rating will provide an adequate measure of your opposition and if it is worth investing your time into playing or not a game.
Yes, the majority of us is for having fun here and learning the game better but that doesn't mean that a suggestion should be killed with very specific examples of the suggestion not working as an argument for not implementing it. In my opinion, the average rating and winning percentage is a sound piece of information for any player that wishes to screen quality opposition. Furthermore, in some database programs you get to see this information for specific openings. Not that it says about the soundness of an opening but you begin to question why a variation has a 67% wins with White 10% draws and the remaining wins by Black? Furthermore, you may wonder why is it that the average rating of the people that plays that variation is 2356?
Is it not the same with specific players? Of course! I would like to know their winning percentage and the strength of the opposition. In short it is a valid suggestion and has nothing to do with having or not having fun. Dismissing a proposal with empty arguments like "This is just about fun!" or very specific counterexamples (Miguel's) for a feature request that is garden variety in common databse programs is just disheartening.
I know Migel has decided to give us this great website and I am thankful for that! If I were in his shoes I would be far less patient than he is. But then again, upon deciding not to implement a feature please provide an argument that goes beyond "This is about fun" and very specific counterexamples to it when that very feature is already in database programs (SCID, Chessbase)
I hope I was reasonable in this response. Also... Thanks Miguel for everything, I, and I believe Mandaragit, do not mean any harm suggesting the implementation of this tool.
Kind regards,
Alopinto
|
|
|
i still believe in my continuing prophecy that this site will be the best in the near future. although the site is still in its infancy stage, miguel's constant nurturing of the members' reasonable needs, growing up to become #1 can easily be foreseen.
well, "alopinto" is perfectly right. playing chess on-line entails a time-consuming investment. with lots of chess sites available on the web at the moment, chessplayers, particularly those of strong-caliber, have the tendency of choosing only few of the best sites where it is WORTH-PLAYING not merely for fun but for quality opposition.
the success of a chess site is measured by the number of strong players actively playing therein. my suggestion of "average rating of opposition" feature is mainly intended to attract prospective strong players to assess whether playing chess in QUEEN ALICE is worth their time.
Do we have strong players here? of course we have, but i cannot confidently tell how many there are. in my personal opinion, there are very few of them. my basis is that in other sites, i'm not even in the top 100... but here, i'm in the top spot among permanently-rated players.
you may readily ask...how come in other sites, where membership fees are imposed, there are innumerable strong players who are very willing to pay and play? whereas in some sites, including QUEEN ALICE, where you can play unlimited number of games FOR FREE, you could count a few strong players? of course, the answer is obvious...it must be the quality of opposition combined with cool features !!!
Bragging aside, i'm a paying member of the top 4 chess sites..and there's no reason for me to play chess here anymore. in fact, i'm playing lots of games here! my reason is... it has become my personal conviction to be part of the pioneers who have contributed to the success of QUEEN ALICE.
regards to members of our friendly community...
mandaragit
|
| Previous 1 2 3 4 Next |
|
|
|
