I'd rather that chess ratings were based on how well one dresses for tournaments. People are often disgustingly unstylish at tournaments, what with having those pants linings so high up over the belly buton and don't get me started on the sock in sandal thing.
I think that if someone refuses to dress properly, they should drop dramatically in rating. Because it's bad for society!
"Vegeta, what's the scouter say about his power level?"
"It's over NINE THOUSAND!!!!"
I read through all your comments and your right; there isn't a need for this kind of thing. But personally in my opinion there shouldn't be a reason not to have one. To the person who made the degree comment: Your right. People should be rewarded on effort.
All I'm saying is by learning someone's potential to make the BEST move not good moves; not only does it raise or lower how cautious you play it can also motivate you to become a lot better. I understand in the beginning I let my personal feelings get in the way of my point; ruining my chance with an audience that's very analytical and doesn't tend to do that.
But in my articles you can hate my ideas but please don't attack me. Some of your comments were pretty harsh. Not that some of my conclusions weren't dumb. In all honesty when I thought of this system is was for something else; which I know is not stupid but I thought it could work for chess too. I'm not stupid. I'm just a 15 year old boy voicing his thoughts on the internet beleive it or not... I don't see why even if my thoughts seem stupid to you why you would try and crucify me. I'll never fight you guys on my articles because personally a flame war wouldn't do anything. But in the end I will admit.. I do beleive you guys were right, and this system after all would be a fantasy.
"Vegeta, what's the scouter say about his power level?"
"It's over NINE THOUSAND!!!!"
LMAO! I'll have to keep in mind since I'm pretty sure that most of you aren't teens, that I'll need to write more like an adult and not make such childish examples. This discussion's over for me.. I got what I *needed* out of it. :)
And thanks for in the end making me a better player for it. I thought this site was about fun but apparently you guys take your ratings VERY seriously. That's fine. I'll just become better than all of you! ;D
MOON KNIGHT OUT!
If it weren't for the playing of the sympathy-slash-pokemon card and also the whole 'ANY noob (!?) that gets in my way will perish when I'm done doing the dishes into you old experienced guys suck' subcommunication, this would be a really snappy comeback.
BTW what kind of teenager does dishes voluntarily in stead of playing board games?! I SOOOOO smell a (45 yrs old) rat!
I don't see this working as just another number. What I do see it working as, however, is a record of all of the moves you have made in all your games, classified by computer analysis as the Nth best available move and/or as a move with a plus or minus effect on the value of your position. If you'd then make a graph of it with the best moves closest to the y-axis, the best players would get a curve shaped like a very sharp y=exp(-x). The worse you are, the less sharp your curve, until you get to a patzer who makes only random moves and gets something like a Gaussian curve. You could then judge a player by looking at the shape of this curve.
Another thing I don't see: any reason for the staff of chess.com to implement it. If you actually make it yourself, please let us know.
All I'm saying is by learning someone's potential to make the BEST move not good moves; not only does it raise or lower how cautious you play it can also motivate you to become a lot better. I understand in the beginning I let my personal feelings get in the way of my point; ruining my chance with an audience that's very analytical and doesn't tend to do that.
The main problem you are missing is that the potential can't really be measured like that. So, you make 5 or 6 moves of your game that matches the best move as an engine sees it. What really matters is those moves where you don't make the best move, where you blunder a piece, or start an attack too early, etc.
If you can't consistently make good moves then that gets reflected in your actual rating. I can make the best move a lot and have had some middle games where my actual moves followed the engine recommendation for 6 moves straight. Then that last move, that I didn't evaluate correctly, puts me behind. Do that a few times in a game over many games and that is your reality. That is how you play and your rating reflects that.
I'm pretty low-rated in tournament play. I lack consistency. A lot of us think we know where our rating should be, which is essentially what a potential rating is, though you can't quantify that rating by how many good moves you actually made. I'm not sure you can actually quantify it at all. I had one tournament game where I got to a won endgame against a much higher rated player. I calculated incorrectly and he ended up winning. My potential may be close to that opponent's rating (and I can beat similarly rated opponents in club play) but because I haven't fully developed my chess skills, especially when it comes to tournament play, it isn't my actual strength.
Truth is, you should think the potential rating of any opponent is at least as good as you and probably better. Everyone has off days and even lower rated players can have a very good game and give unexpected performances. Always play your best and the old axiom is to play the board. I guess if you really know someone very well you may be able to also play the player but playing the board will generally give better results.
How do we define the "best move"? After defining what that means, how do we identify a unique best move in any given position?
(1) Once the game has been fully solved, some might suggest that a player's best move is the one that forces the game into a sub-tree with the best max-min outcome for a player. Logical, but only within a paradigm where max-min is the single optimation rule.
(2) Some moves have temporal and/or psychological effects that outweigh the logic-based max-min criteria. Also logical, but fuzzier -- how do you predict the magnitude of the effect? It would vary from game to game. An example: you have 60 seconds left on your clock, I am losing, but can reduce you to K+B+N against my K (a losing decision according to (1) above), believing that you're not likely to work out the mate in time (a winning decision, in probability, according to (2) above).
I don't see this as ever being possible, even after the game is, as Jacques Clouseau would say, "sol-ved".
Everybody has the potential to make the same move as Kasparov a few times per game. That doesn't mean he has th potential to make 20 Kasparov moves per game.
In golf, once or twice I've made puts Tiger Woods would probably miss 8 out of ten. But my handicap tells the true story, alas!
...... I this is going to sound like a shitty excuse. And I KNOW I would not beleive it myself but..
I had a good response to this with lots of good points and If's and comparing people to computers and redefining what I originally said.. It took me forever to write this.. But when I pressed submit it didn't go.. Maybe I didn't and saved it or screwed up some other way. But right now I'm too exhausted of writing to do it again.. If I'm feeling up to it another day or have the time I will rewrite it.
I beleive that everyone in this topic should read it.. It might make you switch sides: To being for the idea or against it.. But honestly that's the truth right now. I'll do some looking for it. But I doubt I'll find it. :(
MOON KNIGHT OUT.. =/
last night a had a strange dream that i lived in a world where people always used "your" and "you're" correctly.
I'll just become better than all of you!
Don't you mean potentially better?
In fact, if FIDE one day may decide to add an extra zero to everyones rating... my current potential FIDE rating is 21,000!!! Amazing! ;P
...... I this is going to sound like a shitty excuse. And I KNOW I would not beleive it myself but..
I had a good response to this with lots of good points and If's and comparing people to computers and redefining what I originally said.. It took me forever to write this.. But when I pressed submit it didn't go.. Maybe I didn't and saved it or screwed up some other way. But right now I'm too exhausted of writing to do it again.. If I'm feeling up to it another day or have the time I will rewrite it.
I beleive that everyone in this topic should read it.. It might make you switch sides: To being for the idea or against it.. But honestly that's the truth right now. I'll do some looking for it. But I doubt I'll find it. :(
MOON KNIGHT OUT.. =/
OK, now you are talking about a "potential" post, that you were unable to make and how your post would have been great, etc.... I guess that would make your "potential" great post rating much higher, but your real post rating did not increase. Is that irony? No....there must be a better word for it.
...... I this is going to sound like a shitty excuse. And I KNOW I would not beleive it myself but..
I had a good response to this with lots of good points and If's and comparing people to computers and redefining what I originally said.. It took me forever to write this.. But when I pressed submit it didn't go.. Maybe I didn't and saved it or screwed up some other way. But right now I'm too exhausted of writing to do it again.. If I'm feeling up to it another day or have the time I will rewrite it.
I beleive that everyone in this topic should read it.. It might make you switch sides: To being for the idea or against it.. But honestly that's the truth right now. I'll do some looking for it. But I doubt I'll find it. :(
MOON KNIGHT OUT.. =/
OK, now you are talking about a "potential" post, that you were unable to make and how your post would have been great, etc.... I guess that would make your "potential" great post rating much higher, but your real post rating did not increase. Is that irony? No....there must be a better word for it.
Hilarity.
Crazy idea. If you hate ratings, why not just play unrated?
Damn. You guys just love to beat me into the dirt. I'm dead serious. I WILL rewrite that piece soon. I thought it had some very good points which might change some of your minds.. Why attack me for fun if this is supposed to be a learning thing? A few jokes are ok but when I feel like everybody WANTS me to fail... It just hurts. I'll put all the main points of the post I lost right under here. It changes from potential to something else.. Potential is stupid your right.. But this is different.
Topics in lost-post for those who doubted it existed:
There will be a repost to prove all of these seemingly random points if you can't connect the dots.. But I'm busy I have a life like you.. I'll do it as soon as I can. I want to come to a definite answer about this...
Some of you are really beginning to piss me off. This is ridiculous. Why am I being shot down for a theory? I know that I stated my personal dislike for my rating and that gives me a jaded opinion but this. This new definition of the same system.. This is different. And CANNOT contain any prejudice I might have to the rating system because of how it works. It would have it's flaws like the regular one does..
I don't hate the system.. I was just dumb. If I want to experiment and be dumb I should just make another account rather than lowering my rating down to a level which I feel like I don't deserve. This isn't saying that if I get beat back down to this level I'll make another account and restart... I just need to make a serious account so I can understand where I fit.
You guys taught me a lot but please those of you who come back to mock me and don't care; leave. I don't need you. Your useless here.
But those of you who honestly think you can LOGICALLY disprove this theory stay.. Because I feel this is important. ~I am definetly copy and pasting so the -lost post- shit doesn't happen again. I'm sick of looking like a stupid fool. I'd rather look like a regular one who makes valid points to his own ability. Troll comments are being ignored by me now.
-sighs- MOON KNIGHT OUT... ._.
Thanks to all who were productive with this. And keep up to date with this. I'm sure this is the good idea. The new conclusion I came to.
Same theory - Different use.
That's basically my last stand.. I think that theory could seriously work. If you can disprove me.. I'll drop it. But I might bring it back up later if you can't convince me. Immature? Yes.
But for God's sake people. I'm seriously only 15! Don't swear at me and attack me like I'm fricken 40 or something! It doesn't feel good to be ganged up on by a bunch of smart adults. Unfair advantage much already? Me trying to prove all of you my point when you seem to think your better. And you can't be wrong? Give me a chance... Please. I can't go to anyone else with this if it doesn't pass your analysis here. This isn't meant to be implemented. This is an idea. Not a project. IF we decide its possible.. It might turn into one.
tonydal, are you married?
Yes, but only for a couple days a week (it's the perfect potential marriage).
/potentially proposes to tonydal. Have I mentioned you're awesome?
...wait, I'm a guy. So...potential awkward?