But the ratio idea doesn't work. If you have a 1200 with an average opponent of 1200 and a 1600 with an average opponent of 1600, your ratio idea will say they are equal. How does that make any sense?
And yes, you can gain points against people 300-400 points below you. And at that point you have a 1 in 10 chance of losing, and you will eventually lose the points you gained.
The ratio idea also punishes people for playing games against higher rated players, which is the best way to learn, and encourages cherry-picking. Nothing is wrong with the system that is in place now.
What do you even need it for then? Just look at their average opponent score. It's right there in their stats.
What do you even need it for then? Just look at their average opponent score. It's right there in their stats.
Agreed. All of the conclusions you describe being able to draw based on the ratio can be drawn from the average opponent rating which is a much more intuitive stat for to new users to wrap their heads around.
Nothing like coming back from a long break and getting lucky. Your rating shoots up for a few days!
For exactly that reason.
The reason is that the information is already available in the form of the average opponent's rating statistic so adding the ratio would be entirely redundant.
I have another question what if i want to go to a chess tournament and they ask me which category i would like to play in?
1200+
1500+ etc
play in the category that fits your rating
Actually, your idea is worse. The glicko system is not based on rating ratios, it is based on rating differences. Using a ratio would distort the information you are looking for. You should be looking at the difference between the rating and the average opponent rating. But even then, unless there is a gross difference it is really not an issue, as the methods of the glicko system will be taking the various opponent's ratings into account in a much more detailed way than just looking at the average.
I think better visibility into a player's RD value would actually be better than the average opponent's rating anyway -- there are all sorts of reasons a player's average opponent's rating might be misleading but the RD value should give you an idea how accurate the rating is thought to be. It's by no means a replacement, but I do think it provides more value than the AOR.
I'd also like to see a moving average opponent's rating that would give me a better idea what the average has been recently -- this is one of the ways in which the statistic in it's current form may be misleading.
A better predictor of a players strength would be the ratio of his rating to the average rating of his opponents. I see a lot of people who build their ratings by piling up wins on beginners so the allmighty rating develop is only a shell of the ability you're "supposed" to have at their height.
This doesn't work if the glicko system is used correctly. The more you do this, the less you earn, until you are earning only fractional points. And if you lose to any of those low rated players, you can lose a significant chunk of points. The risk/rewards eventually balance out and your stuck, unless you start playing tougher opponents.
It only really works if you provide a minimum one point per win, which I think is only done for the live chess here. Hopefully that will go away when they update to the new version of live chess.
"The risk/rewards eventually balance out and your stuck, unless you start playing tougher opponents."
Ah, but the apriori assumption here is a whopper ... 1) that you can FIND tougher opponents, and 2) that Their ratings will be reflective of that strength. 3rd) of course, that you score against them. But at least #3 will be the players prerogative, rather than that of a drastically deflated rating pool in Live Chess. That somehow manages to be inflationary for turn-based Chess ~?! wow, wild ya? Surely one cannot blame the mathematics of a system so broadly accepted and used across the Chess world
as Glicko ... er, yeah. 
Anyway ...
So I'm not sure how it happens, but might be to do with black-holes that spew forth Maytag washers ...and rating points ?!(Whilst of course, sucking IN any rating points ...and washers, in the vicinity that lack sufficient velocity and angle of ...WAIT, OMG What's that ??? why Its the great rating hole itself, right here a t ch ess c om
2 -56 1100 31 21+ 34 87 398 1827 9182 22 03
0 13 0 7 22+ 36- 1 2+ 1200 34 - +15
2101 @ 12 135 1 11 1 15 34 1103
1 3+ 1778 248 81 0 23 9 o2 9 3
(Disclaimer: Submitted in good humor ..see
; Artistic liberties taken; author reserves all rights to change his identity nik to "I_HATE_GLICKO~!" for now and perpetuity )
1200 is the average you start at.
Duh!
This newsflash just in on the newswire: Dimmie is still a troll.
its just your average
hmmm, ratings are not the most important aspects in chess. Just concentrate on your strategy and tactics and go for the win. Winning is the most important thing in a chess game, so why bother about your rating?
Turtle, it doesn't matter how much pieces you have. I remember I'd lost all my pieces except a queen, a knight, and the three pawns in front of my king. AND I WON!
Of course, my opponent blundered and let me do smothered mate on him, but that doesn't matter. ;P
A better predictor of a players strength would be the ratio of his rating to the average rating of his opponents. I see a lot of people who build their ratings by piling up wins on beginners so the allmighty rating develop is only a shell of the ability you're "supposed" to have at their height.
This doesn't work if the glicko system is used correctly. The more you do this, the less you earn, until you are earning only fractional points. And if you lose to any of those low rated players, you can lose a significant chunk of points. The risk/rewards eventually balance out and your stuck, unless you start playing tougher opponents.
It only really works if you provide a minimum one point per win, which I think is only done for the live chess here. Hopefully that will go away when they update to the new version of live chess.