For exactly that reason.
Chess rating system
Sort:
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
saidh wrote: Also, arguing against my ratio idea being incoherent is absurd whether you knew about average ratings or not. The idea is better than the average rating of an opponent. I am arguing for easy stats, I still have yet to figure out what you're arguing for.
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.
ichabod801 wrote:
saidh wrote:
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
[COMMENT DELETED]
viswanathan wrote:
turtle wrote: i am starting to understand the rating system, but how do you determine points during a game? are certain peices worth different points?
turtle, the general points system followed is as follows:
pawn - 1pt.
knight/bishop - 3pts.
rook - 5pts.
queen - 10pts.
of course points are not everything... the position of your piece also matters.. for example you might not mind losing a bishop or rook to save a pawn on the 7th row.. and points dont have any bearing on the game result.. it is just a basic framework to help beginners understand the value of different pieces
The queen is worth nine you imbecile!
demetrios18 wrote:
I have beaten many GM's and FM"s in blitz chess 5 min 5 increment. But have lost games or had a tougher time with much weaker opponents.
Can you provide us with a few of these games?
conman1000 wrote:
demetrios18 wrote:
I have beaten many GM's and FM"s in blitz chess 5 min 5 increment. But have lost games or had a tougher time with much weaker opponents.
Can you provide us with a few of these games?
Probably way too many to choose from : )
General-Lee wrote:
The queen is worth nine you imbecile!
You realize you just called Philidor, Euwe, and Lasker (among others) imbeciles, right?
Nothing like coming back from a long break and getting lucky. Your rating shoots up for a few days!