Who is player X? (Extended Personal Profile)

paul211 wrote: ... I for one am struggling to find opponents, do not be scared by my rating, ... around 1900 ...

Rating is no means the only factor that people consider in selecting an opponent. We also look for someone we can get along with - win or lose.

The Extended Profile - proposed earlier in this discussion, is one way of indicating one's chess outlook. If someone is fanatical about using the full range Correspondence Chess facilities - and someone else is fanatical about NOT using them - there will be less disappointment all round if, when these two play one another, each is aware of the other person's approach.

Perhaps choices list could be voluntarily enhanced by players self editing their Location box to   add in their own World Time Zone (G M T or Universal Time)Not all places can be found in guides- some are too small to be in relevant lists. This would save lot search time and quite a lot of"what is your time please? "queries. Could also be educational for kids who don't know which way the world goes round. Needs no programming- just a small effort by interested indivuals round the Chess Community.

For profile matching to work, there would need to be either a weighting factor associated with each attribute, or the attributes would have to be prioritised. Weighting factors are easier to manage.

I have limited experience of dating systems, but here's a first guess:

Indicate how important the following attributes are to you. Use a scale 1..4 where 1 indicates VERY IMPORTANT and 4 means NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL.

[2] Preferred Style of Chess{CC/OTB/...}

[4] Correspondence Chess facilities (major) used during a game {Game Explorer/ ...}

[4] Correspondence Chess facilities (minor) used during a game {Analysis Board}

[1] Cheating {use Engines/...}

[4] Ease-of-Play / Multiple Game Management facilities {Touch Move/...}

[3] Learning Attitude {Serious/Casual/...}

[4] Competitive Attitude {Resign/Never resign!}

[3] Speed of play {Fast/Slow..}

[2] Courtesy {hi!/gg/...}

[2] Verbosity{chat/silent}

[4] Participation in non-Chess Activities{forums/groups/...}

"1" should mean that we require that attribute to match - in our potential opponent's profile.

"4" means that we don't care what our potential opponent has set that attibute to.

Will this scheme work?

I have misgivings about such a system. Many of my best chess moments have been vs. opponents I'd rather not have played or were social opposites. By eliminating or reducing randomness, you narrow the whole chess experience for many. Chess is chess. Nothing else matters while you sit at a board.

A fair point. The Start New Game process already has an optional rating restriction that can be used to filter the range of opponents. This proposal could be used in a similar way to [optionally] restrict selection of opponents. HOWEVER you could:

• look for a compatible opponent
  
• look for an incompatible one - if you wanted to make life interesting!
  
• look for somebody in between
  
• just let the system arrange it for you.
  

One futuristic aspect of the Extended Profile (see post #8), is that the system could collect enough data about you to either fill it in for you or check your settings. Consider this section, for instance.

Verbosity { Tick one }

( ) Chat freely during game

( ) Chat only if opponent starts chatting

( ) Disable chat

• It's obviously easy for the system to count the number games in which you disabled chat. If this exceeds 5% (say) of your games, then this setting should be ticked.
  
• A game would qualify as chat freely if you made at least 3 (say)  comments ( - though if your opponent made no reply - then it wouldn't count). To qualify you as chatterbox, it should apply to 25% (say) of your games.
  
• Chat only if opponent starts chatting: If you initiate the conversation in fewer than 10% (say) of the games (in which you chat at all), then this would qualify you as a reluctant chatterer.
  

That would certainly be the case unless the boxes were checked automatically as he suggested in post 28.  Kinda like our "average time per move."  We can't lie about our stats if they're computed automatically. Not everything can be computed automatically of course, but a lot of them can.

Competitive Attitude { Tick any that apply }

[ ] Never resign!

[ ] Resign when appropriate

What would be an acceptable threshold for labelling someone as a 'Never' resign-er? Resigning from fewer than 5% of their lost games? (And would this be the borderline between qualifying for automatic membership of Chess Spartans rather than Chess Athenians?).

Determining when it would have been appropriate to resign is, of course, the holy grail of chess. Many forums dedicate themselves to this noble pursuit - a few with Monty Pythonesque vigour.

The forums provide a 'marketplace' for members to promote their 'potential' as potential opponents. I've lost count of the number of times I've received a message or note saying: "you remind me of so-and-so". So I naturally use Member Search - only to discover that Chauchescu (or whoever) is inexplicably no longer a member.

One feature missing from Start New Game is the option to issue a challenge by proxy i.e. where you select both players - and neither of them is you!

Bump.

Echoes of post #76 from THIS discussion ...

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/fun-with-chess/how-to-always-win-a-chess-game?page=4

in which PatzerGal wrote: "My most successful strategy for beating my husband involves the exchange of a resignation for the ever-popular move 'NxQbedroom'. Try this one sometime, it's a true Win-Win outcome..."

In post #8, the Extended Profile is presented in a more readable format - and this is the style I use in my profile. The attributes are grouped (e.g. Major Correspondence Chess facilities used during the game; then the individual items are listed: (e.g. Game Explorer, books, ...) - which makes it easier to introduce new items into the list.

The sequence in which the attributes are presented is a matter of personal taste that could provoke as much debate as the items themselves.

Even the labels are potentially contentious. One person may consider it courtesy to say: "good game" at the end of every game - whatever the game was like. Another person may consider it more courteous to express an honest opinion: "you played like a donkey!".

Competitive Attitude is a weak choice of label for: "Attitude towards Resigning". Resigning early, late or not at all is one of the behavioural traits that annoys many people on this site - when one's opponent takes the opposite approach to one's own. It is well worth making explicit.

Number of years experience could be of interest - but I do not feel it is an accurate indicator of ability. Someone may have started playing 40 years ago, but perhaps they have only started playing a large number of games in the past 12 months.

Indicating your preferred openings for white and responses for black is, in my opinion, a step too far, for two reasons. First, it discriminates against the large group of people (myself included) who would be unable to name their openings and responses - through being unfamiliar with opening theory. Secondly, this information is already available and it is tedious to repeat it. I can already see, for instance (by clicking on your name followed by Explore Games), that you favour 1.e4 as white and 1.d4 as black.

Much of the information in the proposed Extended Profile is already available - if you know where to look. There is some advantage in bringing together in one place. It becomes more powerful if it can be utilised directly in Start New Game or Search Member as a filter on opponents.

Used in conjunction with Essential Chess Type (http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/its-another-rollover), it can provide a quick indicator of someone's chess personality.

We must not overlook xMenace's caution in post #26:

"I have misgivings about such a system. Many of my best chess moments have been vs. opponents I'd rather not have played or were social opposites. By eliminating or reducing randomness, you narrow the whole chess experience for many. Chess is chess. Nothing else matters while you sit at a board."

You joined chess.com today - and found this Forum Topic with your name on it. How serendipidous!

This is a good idea.

Then you could tell player (wh)y

that sounds like a really cool idea!

Alphabetically sound.

 At your service.