Yep, like I'm saying, he focuses on the 'elo gatekeeping' rather than WHEN I TALK ABOUT THE ACTUAL TOPIC!!! If this guy would read my previous comments and stop pretending to 'blur' them then he would know that I'm actually contributing to the topic. @Basketstorm just knows he can't win an argument against me so he pretends that I'm not even talking about elo ratings and just ignores me completely. And I've said this before and I'll say it again, I acknowledge that the rating system is far from perfect, but it's not our job to go around saying, "HEY! ARPAD ELO MADE A STUPID RATING SYSTEM! WE SHOULD TELL CHESS.COM TO CHANGE THEIR'S!" (no offense to anyone, I'm only using this as an example) we're supposed to be playing chess and improving our skills rather than complaining here. Mods, can you please close this forum already?
Checking if Elo system is oppressive [With proofs]
Okay...? Even if low elo players aren't at their true rating it doesn't mean you'll lose nearly every game. Chess is a game about skill, not about rating. So what if they're like 600 level when they're 500? If you beat them, cool, you're good at chess. If you don't, well, time to learn.
like me. on chess I'm 528 but in almost all of my analysis and third-party chess apps, I'm rated about 1300-1400.
Its ya own tread ya can block cancel mute and cencored any user ya judge they dont contribute at the level ya wish them to.
please get better at spelling
Yep, like I'm saying, he focuses on the 'elo gatekeeping' rather than WHEN I TALK ABOUT THE ACTUAL TOPIC!!! If this guy would read my previous comments and stop pretending to 'blur' them then he would know that I'm actually contributing to the topic. @Basketstorm just knows he can't win an argument against me so he pretends that I'm not even talking about elo ratings and just ignores me completely. And I've said this before and I'll say it again, I acknowledge that the rating system is far from perfect, but it's not our job to go around saying, "HEY! ARPAD ELO MADE A STUPID RATING SYSTEM! WE SHOULD TELL CHESS.COM TO CHANGE THEIR'S!" (no offense to anyone, I'm only using this as an example) we're supposed to be playing chess and improving our skills rather than complaining here. Mods, can you please close this forum already?
and I find it hilarious that instead of arguing against an argument that argues against him, he argues against my argument which was me trying to come at the problem from a more neutral POV.
basketstorm,you saw the games i posted,right..........?
What games, where?
@backetstorm lol why ya sandbag puzzle lmfao I never seen that before its hilarious.
Do same please. That's a form of protest against paywall/gatekeeping (you don't get access to puzzles if you don't pay and your puzzle rating would be stuck - very dirty).
basketstorm,you saw the games i posted,right..........?
What games, where?
page 47
basketstorm,you saw the games i posted,right..........?
What games, where?
page 47
Congrats on your wins, but I'm confused, why do I need to look at these games?
basketstorm,you saw the games i posted,right..........?
What games, where?
page 47
Congrats on your wins, but I'm confused, why do I need to look at these games?
compare them to your theories
@backetstorm lol why ya sandbag puzzle lmfao I never seen that before its hilarious.
Do same please. That's a form of protest against paywall/gatekeeping (you don't get access to puzzles if you don't pay and your puzzle rating would be stuck - very dirty).
hoh ! lol I must admit ya very clever somehow
"hoh!" ???
another game of which i won,... just sharing because of amazeing comeback
at least i'm not a suck-up like jankowski
i play as white
hes just stating facts
Amazing that this absurd topic is still alive after more than a month. Although it seems to slowly evolve into another Janko troll show.
Amazing that this absurd topic is still alive after more than a month. Although it seems to slowly evolve into another Janko troll show.
Cause the owner is a janko troll alt it was always a janko show
I decided to explore the side I'm against' argument to actually see whether they could be right.
Let's imagine a REALLY SIMPLE rating system where a loss = -10 points, and a win = +10 points.
Let's also imagine everyone has started at their true rating.
Such system has flaw: it's easier to win against a weaker opponent, so rewarding 10 points for such win isn't fair.
And there's no such thing as "their true rating" in absolute sense. Rating difference matters, your players could have 1000, 990, 980, 970 ratings and their difference would represent difference in strength just like 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970 or 3000, 2990, 2980, 2870. I mean mathematically, rating difference predicts outcome, not absolute rating value.
To properly evaluate how fair and accurate your system is, first, think about graph of games. Imagine all your players played against each other player 10 times. And imagine you know nothing about their rating or strength yet.
If we count draw as half-win, we can have a table with winrate values like this:
Now can you calculate rating differences for them? Assign arbitrary rating like 1000 at start to each player and then adjust ratings to reflect winrate prediction. How would you do that? We all know how Arpad Elo has solved this. And it's true that you can arrive to same number via increments (but not with fixed ones, you need to take into account rating difference and some K factor) provided there are enough games and enough cross-play to avoid isolated pools. If there's pool isolation - you must recalculate until rating differences match winrates. This is very simple and I have repeated this many times in this topic. This idea belongs to Arpad Elo not me. And recent FIDE rating recalculation was about matching winrates with rating differences. You have to do this recalculation if you want a healthy and accurate rating pool. And you must do other maintenance to fix pool isolations, can't rely on increments only here, imagine you have 4 other players who play against each other, who progress differently but they never play against Claude, Bolchev, Karley or Metre. Then you conduct one game between Bolchev and one of the players from that isolated pool. Would any increment or decrement be fair here? No it would not make any sense. You must take not one, but many games between Bolchev and that player, calculate winrate, then completely recalculate (by shifting) ratings of all players in that isolated pool. Only then you can switch back to increments. Without that you will have a long lasting distortion. This is also, not just my opinion, initially it belongs to Arpad Elo. Now, we don't have any maintenance here on chess.com and that's why users notice inconsistencies with rating vs strength. And they get unfairly punished by these inconsistencies just like imagine Bolchev playing against stronger but lower rated (because he was played in an isolated pool) player, losing game and losing a good portion of his rating. This wasn't fair and it wasn't a skill issue of Bolchev. Flawed system basically oppressed him. I hope this is clear.
Am I telling something weird or crazy or funny? I think mods need to clean up this topic from all this "gatekeep" spam. MasterJyanM, EloGateKeeper, TitanMaster101 etc I don't know what their problem is but they don't contribute, they're just clogging up the topic.