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: 

1.material_of_the_winner_at_last_move/number_of_game_moves

And for the loser will be 

 (- material_of_the_winner_at_last_move)/number_of_game_moves.

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).

Then compute

                    s1 =  (s1*n1+(s2/(s1+s2))*r)/(n1+1);

                    n1=n1+1;

                    s2=(s2*n2-(s2/(s1+s2))*r)/(n2+1);

                    n2=n2+1; 

A simple numerical example s1=0.5 s2=0.26  n1=10 ; n2=25; r=1.25

 New stregths:

  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

Thanks.  A good year for every one.

"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?

dare 2 challnge me!!!

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.

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.