An Idea That Could Change Everything (in chess)

Measuring potential skill would only make your actual rating look even more sad by contrast.

Whew, you just cheered me up.  I thought it was just me.  Oh, wait, you said "most".

Has everything changed yet? I can't tell.

If anything changes, we'll let you know.

#100 HA!

When do you think this kid will figure out his thread has been hijacked by a gang of snarky chess nuts?

Yeah, there's a fair bit of hyperbole there.  But think if FIDE did adopt it - that would change everything.  Just not necessarily for the better.

Potential:

Custer had the potential to kill the indians

LIncoln had to potential to stop Booth

Pearl Harbor had the potential to not get bombed

If i was Japanese, and a in the militarry id be a submarine commander.

IMO there is a problem with your potential score: it still depends on the strength of the opponents. If you play only against scores of patzers, you will achieve easy and comfortable positions with them , and consequently it will be easier for you to find the best moves. If you fight against GM's they'll make sure to put you in the most painful and complicated position where it is easy to blunder and your potential score consequently will go down.

Thanks Azukikuru.. I'm used to people not reading the whole thing now. lol Because all the new people are still mentioning the potential which I admitted is a bad idea. Your conclusion was most definetly the best and most kind, as with other people with their logical conclusions.

You're right; I shouldn't get mad but it's a little wearing on me to deal with so many people hating on me, mocking my ideas and calling me an idiot. The first statement was idiotic. But the last statement was decent. I never said it would revolutionize chess I said it could.

@ Panderson2; It could still work though.. Just like some chess game against players with decent ratings can come across as easy to you and others of the same rating can be harder their is still a margin of error on difficulty for both. This idea would have some issues and yes your score would go down.. But playing like a computer isn't meant to be easy because we're human.

I'm getting the gist that everyone new missed the whole "calculative" rating.. Basically it's the same as the potential rating but it's used to measure how much you can play like a computer. I won't ressummarize if you missed.. Just go back a few posts and read it.

With a few logical, and logically malicious people. xD

I'll remember in the future to name my threads better, and present my points clearer. That quote about genuis' and fools is flawed. If a fool is born every second the whole probably wouldn't be like it is today. Maybe a fool's born every 3 seconds, A smart person every five, and a genuis every 4 hours. ;D

I'm not a fool. Most of us who play chess aren't. I'm a smart person who had a flawed idea, made childish comparisons and couldn't come up with a decent thesis the first time. This experience will make me better in the forums, and I'll try my best not to fight.. I can handle one or two people teasing me. But it's hard being teased by so many at a time.

Sorry for cussing at you when I begged not to be cussed at. (Was I even cussed at? lol) And I hope you can forgive me and take me seriously in the future.

No hard feelings, hopefully.

MOON KNIGHT OUT! :) 

Would my potential rating be over 9000. Jokes. Good to see maturity develop throughout the post, moon knight

 Thanks gambit. If I'm going to be dealing with clever, mature people I'll eventually have to become one myself. It's funny seeing all the people who didn't read the whole thing come to the end and call me dumb now. The calculative system is decent but not necessary.But CLEARLY not as bad as the potential system. XD

Any of you want to be my friend? Some I think some of us could learn something from each other. I know I could learn from you. My rating will go back up.. But seeing that I didn't take it seriously should I just make a new account? I mean I'd start at 1200 and it'd be easier to build from there... Rather than fight my way back from 1000...

Its better to fight your rating from 1000. The hard way is better than the easier way and you'll learn more. There is no point taking the easy way out. The time you spend now will save you time later in development. Also numerically speaking your ranking should be dircetly proportionate to your playing ability. My rating would probably be higher if I only played when in a good state of mind (not tired) but its best to be held accountable for your actions when playing not at your best as you will be able to rise more effectively

Your right but because of circumstances I can't control in my house I get called to do stuff often hurting my score. Not saying I should be 1500 or something I just feel I'm better than 1000. From now on all games are serious and I'll work to make time work with me so I get the respect I feel I deserve. Your right. I like my username anyway! :) Thanks gambit... I will get better... So if at least I can't talk smart in the forums; I'll be good enough to beat you in the game. It's not a personal vendetta, but it seems to be the only way I'll get some respect here.

Looking at the huge posts and imagining how much time it took to type out each one, I can't help but think that if as much time was devoted to studying chess, the potential rating and the actual rating might come more into sync.

I'm just saying...

If you think about, the fact that the easier the opponent the higher is the score is a serious drawback vs your idea . It could work only if the opponent is the same or you are playing vs the same 3100 elo computer chess engine.

 LOL