10266 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Thnx ! same to everybody.
anyone else get a little turned on by the bishop?
I have an idea about how to rate players during a RR tournament., and a general extension in mind.
I believe a measure of the player strength relative to a certain game is given by the speed of the material gain. At the begining the material is even, and at the end there are two posibilities:
1. The game is a draw(any chess rule leading to a draw) .
No one loses both sides keeps its armies for a feature battle. In this case the game score is given by
(material1 - material2)/(number_of_game_moves). One of the sides will have a positive score , while the other will have the same absolute score but with the sign changed.
2. The game ends in mate. The side which loses the game is considered to lose all the material in the end, as the soldiers cannot fight without their king.
The score will be for the winner:
And for the loser will be
At a RR tournament is sufficient to add the score for every game for every player just like that.
If a player competes in different tournaments we must take into account the adversary strength, and the player ranking is computed different.
The player strength is the average of the cumulated game scores.
Suppose the players strengths are s1 and s2,number of games played so far are n1 and n2, and player 1 has a positive game result: r( a draw does not need to be a zero result).
s1 = (s1*n1+(s2/(s1+s2))*r)/(n1+1);
A simple numerical example s1=0.5 s2=0.26 n1=10 ; n2=25; r=1.25
s1= (0.5*10 + (0.26/0.76)*1.25)/11 = 0.49
s2= (0.26*25 - (0.26/0.76)*1.25)/26 =0.23
Also the probability the player 1 wins the player 2 is computed like (s1/s1+s2).
Before the game p=65%; after the game p=68%.
The interpretation of score 1.25:
If the number of moves in current game was 30 , it means the winner had 30*1.25 in material at the last move.
I will apreciate some feedback and how can we test this.
Andrei from Romania
appriciate ur Romanian formulae!! Wish u good luck % Happy New Year!
Thanks. A good year for every one.
wish the same to u & all in Chess.com !!
"points" is an artificial concept - why not just throw in the towel and
have Houdini assign the ratings or play both sides for that matter?
that could be an wonderful innovation to ur artificial concept!! of points.happy new year beardogjones.
dare 2 challnge me!!!
hi nitish@63! U thrown ur gauntlet to everybody.Its heroic! appriciate!!!!!!
My major issue with online ratings is there is no way to tell if the person who beat you used a chess engine. The minor ones are things like, why should a club player with an official rating from an offical sanctioning body of chess tournaments have to start at 1200 when he is a legit 1750? I am sure the argument will be that if he/she is truly that good, they will get there eventually. True, they will, but why take a student in 9th grade back in 4th? Just because 4th grade in the average grade of school students? That is plain ignorant. These few things really bother me. It makes it truly difficult to assess ones personal development. Chessmaster starts players at 1400. Maybe it is because of these complaints. I say start everyone high. If they aren't legit, they will fall fast.
allgiance to certain desciline is a primary need for every player.So a norm which is equal to both the party seems to be a good practice.
You can't just start people high... if everyone started 500 points higher, then eventually everyone's ratings would end up 500 points higher, because you'd pick up more rating points from the new people whose ratings haven't been lowered enough yet. If you start people out at 1700, then the ratings system will adjust itself until the average new person IS a 1700. And the people who used to be 1700 will now be 2200, etc.
Using official ratings from USCF or other bodies as a starting rating would probably be fine from a ratings standpoint, but how would you prove that you are who you say you are? Premium membership using a credit card with your name on it? Obviously they verify the titled players already, but it seems like it would be a pain for the staff to have to do it for everyone.
And as far as the chess engine goes, if someone's using an engine then they're going to be out of your ratings range pretty fast. Assuming they don't just get caught and tossed from the site.
I agree that discipline is essential. You make a mockery of discipline however, when a very disciplined player, through being disciplined, attains a level of education and play.Then you mock his intellegence and discipline by treating him like less than he is. A good norm for both parties would be to treat them as they are instead of your own biasedly leveled playing field.
I have to admit you make a good point about the ratings starting high. I guess thats my own emotional biases kicking in and over compensating. I agree also that it would be a headache for the staff. They might as well be subsidiaries of the major sanctioning bodies.
However, that line of reasoning doesn't quell my hunger for fairness and justice. If you are sated of your desire for these things simply because, it is said that life isn't always fair, then we might as well through out the rule book altogether. Oh wait a minute, that would include the structure(rules) of the game. Therefore, I am defending the integrity, structure and discipline of the game I love. I am not doing this simply because I am upset that I think I deserve a higher rating and don't want to do twice the work,or oh wait, maybe three times while I add in the loses to cheating.
Believe me discrediting the cheater is only the first step. It doesn't fix the damage done to the 1700-2000 players doing it honestly. You might have overlooked how many of these a predator must first devour, before a legit player with a GM/IM type elo will even gime them a game. Then how many more does it take before they are found to be fraud who won't play a live tournament.
This is why in general I have submitted a few examples of why I think some form of reform would be welcome. I would love it if someone would come up with a better system for online play and ratings in particular. Yeah yeah you don't have to reply. I already know.
I agree 100% !!!
I LIKE PIE!
I got a warning about 'intentional abort' but I had severe wifi issues
by mef1962 7 minutes ago
by ilikecapablanca 7 minutes ago
If Capablanca played Carlsen for the world champion match, who would win?
by Elubas 14 minutes ago
Cheating in OTB Chess
by yeres30 21 minutes ago
8/1/2015 - GM Shirov - GM Volokitin, Russian Club Cup, 2009
by mieczyslaw 23 minutes ago
Help me solve this gigantic hole in my repertoire: 1. Nf3 g6
by pfren 24 minutes ago
How did Magnus Carlsen defeated Garry Kasparov at age 13?
by iMacChess 27 minutes ago
Sacramento City Championship 2015 (A/B section)
by kclemens 28 minutes ago
Help with Game analysis?
by DarklingSalmon 30 minutes ago
Lag, it's a problem
by Martin_Stahl 33 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!