An Idea That Could Change Everything (in chess)

I personally hate the rating system. While it is the best way to determine a person's skill.. it's innacurate. Especially in my case. I tend to goof around leave games because of chores and other things so I have a measly 1000.

Beginners start at 1200.

I can guarantee you if they bring their noobey 1200 rating down to my 1000 I'll beat them. Because I'm not a noob.

Now of course your waiting for that idea I mentioned in the title. Some of you doubt that I have it and used it to get your attention.

I didn't.

Let's get down to business. While we have (regular?) ratings and blitz ratings.. There should be a "potential rating".

This rating computes potential not what you've shown.

It's the amount of times you've done the best move all throughout a game. This would be needed to be run by a complex program. This program would track all the "best" moves you've made in a game from square one. Seeing that there is no perfect chess game it would give you the best move for the scenarios your presented with.

Example: If your playing as white your first move is not logged because you have nothing to react to. Not saying that the first move wasn't a good move BUT this system would need to be passive-reactive.

This should excite all of you who favor playing as black because this system would be more accurate for you. There is still a margin of error but this would be better in some cases than the regular system.

Why would it be better?

A system that computes potential rather than ranking shows how you play at your best. Sort of like those scouter's from Dragonball Z (scouter - computer that reads how strong an enemy is; mounted across one eye). This shows what level you're capable of playing. Not what you play all the time.

The Downfall

Like all rating systems there would still be a margin of error. Your not going to be playing your best all the time, this rating shows just what your capable of at your best. But like the regular rating system this has it's plus' too. Someone with a high potential could learn to hone their skills more to raise their regular rating even higher. And someone with a low potential could maybe be a grandmaster who makes good moves but not the best. That might be a little bit of a stretch but I hope you get the idea.

Personally after writing my previous article I don't feel like elaborating further.. If you catch anything I missed please feel free to stateyour mind...

MOON KNIGHT OUT!

I am so tracking this.

I don't think a "moon knight fantasy rating" changes anything in chess. But when you start a thread, there should be a "potential" rating given to it.

I was going to take offence to the fantasy remark but then I thought about it. This "potential" rating would be just that BUT there are some plus' as well. When playing a player if you know his potential rating you know what he's capable of NOT what he's going to do. This raises (or at least would raise my) sense of not taking as many risks during a game. You know those slips in a game that were a mistake or risk you took that ruined everything? Those win or die moves?

Those could be controlled and improved by a potential rating making everyone better players.. By understanding what they're capable of not only does it inspire you to do better it can make you better. So while fantasy may be the correct word, it doesn't mean that this rating should be a fantasy. :) 

Thank you both for your positive input. It always does more than negative input because it doesn't stir up feelings that could ruin the discussion. :D

That was a long post to simply make an excuse...

I hate ratings. I hate ratings. I hate ratings. I hate ratings. I hate ratings...

It's like a toilet that won't stop running...all night it hisses and whines...it's driving me crazy!

I read right up until I saw the words, "Dragonball Z"....

Let me give everyone the readers digest version of the post:

I dont pay attention to my games, i make excuses, i act tough, i dont wat to change but i want the rating system to change.

I don't understand how you could follow someone's "potential" rating points to assist you in playing a "better" game? I don't understand how anyone can figure out a "potential" rating? Is there some new "pre-determination device" that I'm not aware of?

 I was going to give you an intelligent answer but here's a stupid one to match yours. I'm a good chess player. Play me and if I win; then your the fool and I'm the smart, open-minded, thinking person I make myself out to be.

 But If I win then I'm whatever you want. It's only you who's going to think what you do. Not the world. I'd just play for the satisfaction of owning you.

I didn't make any excuse for my low rating. I simply said it should be a little higher. I didn't try to make myself out as better than I am and if you interpreted it that way then I'm sorry. But there is no excuse for your harsh words. :P

So, we should create a new rating system to show your potential rating, if you took your time and made good moves and didn't  tend to goof around.  We have that already....it is called the actual rating system and it shows your potential as actualized when you really try to play chess instead of goofing around.  It would be a lot simpler to just play solid chess instead of dreaming of ways to quantify what you could do if you actually tried.  I guess we could have potential university degrees, too.  They could be based on only the correct answers you score on tests and not all the wrong answers...people could get potential degree certificates to hang on the wall in their den, to show all the things they could have done if they didn't goof around.  Yeah.....that is total rubbish.  

I think Krupp steelworks would be interested in your ramblings, they are pure irony

Love it!  Can I also claim 'potential German fluency' because I can pronounce 'einundzwanzig pfennig, bitte' pretty well?

Moon_Knight, not getting personal but what effen planet are you from?

This suggestion sounds like an investor's view of the stock market or the housing market: always looking at the potential worth rather than just the current value of an asset.

The more important question is: What is the value of bloating the value of a chess player? 

Hmmmmm....bloated chess players...not a pretty picture.

tonydal, are you married?

Good point.

Rephrased question: What good will it do to inflate the value of a chess player's capability?

inflate the value of a chess player's capability   =  inflate the chess player's ego

inflate the chess player's ego  =  inflate the chess player's false self-image

Therefore, the chess player can become more and more out of touch with reality and live in their self-created dream world of potentiality.

I personally think ratings are a great touchstone for us all...anytime I start to feel unrealistically good about my chess skills, I just play someone a few hundred points higher than me, and I am soundly thrashed back to reality.

The way you say it sounds like the year 2000 dotcom burst and the more recent real estate and stock market crash to me.