Chess rating system

Rafchess

InnocentIts somr thing !! let me take little respite. then resume.

andreic

To follow the basic idea of my system a positive score of 1.25 means the winner, takes 1.25 points per move on average from opponent.Remember that the mate 

move "captures" all opponent pieces.

Rafchess
Innocenttubebender wrote:

Don`t try to" reinvent the Wheel"; stay with either the Elo (for simplicity) or the Glickman modified Elo system used by the USCF.


 Innocent more bending will spoil the tube.so appriciate ur understanding!

cathen

Merry Christmas everyone!

GPGP

thanks, same to you and everyone

Rafchess

Thnx ! same  to  everybody.Laughing

chestonblumentahl

anyone else get a little turned on by the bishop?

Rafchess
chestonblumentahl wrote:

anyone else get a little turned on by the bishop?


 Frown...unpredictable !!

Rafchess
andreic wrote:

I have an idea about how to rate players during a RR tournament., and a general extension in mind.

I believe a measure of the player strength relative to a certain game is given by the speed of the material gain. At the begining the material is even, and at the end  there are two posibilities:

1. The game is a draw(any chess rule leading to a draw) .  

No one loses both sides keeps its armies for a feature battle. In this case the game score is given by

(material1 - material2)/(number_of_game_moves). One of the sides will have a positive score , while the other will have the same absolute score but with the sign changed.

2. The game ends in mate. The side which loses the game is considered to lose all  the material in the end, as the soldiers cannot fight without their king.

The score will be for the winner: 

1.material_of_the_winner_at_last_move/number_of_game_moves

And for the loser will be 

 (- material_of_the_winner_at_last_move)/number_of_game_moves.

At a RR tournament is sufficient to add the score for every game for every player just like that.

If a player competes in different tournaments we must take into account the adversary strength, and the player ranking  is computed different.

The player strength is the average  of the cumulated game scores.

Suppose the players strengths are s1 and s2,number of games played so far are n1 and n2, and player 1 has a positive game result: r( a draw does not need to be a zero result).

Then compute

                    s1 =  (s1*n1+(s2/(s1+s2))*r)/(n1+1);

                    n1=n1+1;

                    s2=(s2*n2-(s2/(s1+s2))*r)/(n2+1);

                    n2=n2+1; 

A simple numerical example s1=0.5 s2=0.26  n1=10 ; n2=25; r=1.25

 New stregths:

  s1= (0.5*10 + (0.26/0.76)*1.25)/11 = 0.49

  s2= (0.26*25 - (0.26/0.76)*1.25)/26 =0.23

Also the probability the player 1 wins the player 2 is computed like (s1/s1+s2).

Before the game p=65%; after the game p=68%.

The interpretation of score 1.25:

If the number of moves in current game was 30 , it means the winner had 30*1.25 in material at the last move.

I will apreciate some feedback and how can we test this. 

 

Andrei from Romania


 Laughing appriciate ur Romanian formulae!! Wish u good luck % Happy New Year!

andreic

Thanks.  A good year for every one.

Rafchess
andreic wrote:

Thanks.  A good year for every one.


 Smilewish the same to u & all in Chess.com !!

icebergslimshadow
[COMMENT DELETED]
beardogjones

"points" is an artificial concept - why not just throw in the towel and

have Houdini assign the ratings or play both sides for that matter?

Rafchess
beardogjones wrote:

"points" is an artificial concept - why not just throw in the towel and

have Houdini assign the ratings or play both sides for that matter?


 Innocent that could be an wonderful innovation to ur artificial concept!! of points.happy new year beardogjones.

Burginflickle
[COMMENT DELETED]
Rafchess
Burginflickle wrote:
[COMMENT DELETED]

 Innocent 0+0=0.

nitish63

dare 2 challnge me!!!

Rafchess
nitish63 wrote:

dare 2 challnge me!!!


hi nitish@63! U thrown ur gauntlet to everybody.Its heroic! appriciate!!!!!!

nameno1had

My major issue with online ratings is there is no way to tell if the person who beat you used a chess engine. The minor ones are things like, why should a club player with an official rating from an offical sanctioning body of chess tournaments have to start at 1200 when he is a legit 1750? I am sure the argument will be that if he/she is truly that good, they will get there eventually. True, they will, but why take a student in 9th grade back in 4th? Just because 4th grade in the average grade of school students? That is plain ignorant. These few things really bother me. It makes it truly difficult to assess ones personal development. Chessmaster starts players at 1400. Maybe it is because of these complaints. I say start everyone high. If they aren't legit, they will fall fast.

Rafchess
nameno1had wrote:

My major issue with online ratings is there is no way to tell if the person who beat you used a chess engine. The minor ones are things like, why should a club player with an official rating from an offical sanctioning body of chess tournaments have to start at 1200 when he is a legit 1750? I am sure the argument will be that if he/she is truly that good, they will get there eventually. True, they will, but why take a student in 9th grade back in 4th? Just because 4th grade in the average grade of school students? That is plain ignorant. These few things really bother me. It makes it truly difficult to assess ones personal development. Chessmaster starts players at 1400. Maybe it is because of these complaints. I say start everyone high. If they aren't legit, they will fall fast.


 Coolallgiance to certain desciline is a primary need for every player.So  a  norm which is equal to both the party seems to be a good practice.