Chess rating system

  • #141

    I guess for now I will choose not to visit the site and put the formula into excel - and just stick to my social life


  • #142
    excelguru wrote: erik wrote:

    everyone starts at 1200. then as you play you get a new rating. it is all based on the Glicko ratings system :) check it out - it's a fun read!

    http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/glicko/glicko.doc/glicko.html 


    You know what's really sad? I visited that link and understood every single bit of it. Heck, I even know how to write the Excel formulas to emulate it. That's just sad... sad, sad, sad. Man, I need a social life. ROFL.


    I visited that site, took one look at that formula .........and ran !!


  • #143
       Ah yeah...like I just want to play... I got a headache looking at that site. Wow.
  • #144
    i think Jay or someone posted a topic on how they work and why you are given a 1200 preliminary.
  • #145
    oh ok makes sense pretty interesting
  • #146
    Would you say that you experienced the Glicko system to work fully symmetrically, i.e. will you end up on the same rating if playing higher rated players 10 times and beating them, let's say, only once, compared to playing lower rated players 10 times, winning 9 out of 10 times? I like to play both higher and lower rated players, but it would be interesting to know if there would exist a strategy to increase your rating by focusing on lower OR higher rated players. That would constitute a glitch, IMO...
  • #147

    Interesting idea, Clownfish. The formulas could be used with some sample data to determine the results. But to use that approach in real life, as a "strategy" per se, would require you to know not only the ratings of your potential opponents but also their RD values. Then you would have to run the numbers to determine the best possible sample of opponents against which to battle. Even then, there's no guarantee of better success against the lower-ranked sample group.

     

    And what if the higher-ranked players have very high RD values and the lower-ranked players have very low RD values? Then the results for the two scenarios you describe above could be equal or even reversed!

     

    I offer the following spin on your idea: We have no way of affecting our opponents' RD values. But we can affect our own. By definition, the RD value will gradually increase with time. So if we take extended leaves between groups of rated games, that would affectively cause our RD value to increase before each group of games. Therefore the ratings swing caused by our game results would be more dramatic (which could be a BAD thing). But we would need to know what time constant the USCF (or FIDE or whomever) uses for the RD equation. 2 months? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? And of course we would have to stay "up on our game" during those sabaticals.

     

    In the end, I don't think there's an easy way to minipulate the formulas or the system. There may be a way, but it's probably not very easy. Or we could try to win every game. :-)


  • #148
    Chess rating ELO is hard to improve.
  • #149
    Ratings...Shmatings...Get to playings, fools! 
  • #150
    But then I wouldn't get to play around with the math formulas. LOL.
  • #151
    LOL it is kind of easy too.
  • #152
    High rated is good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • #153
    joeyson wrote:

    wow ppl

    just play

    ratings dont even matter


     Ratings are important to people, it justifies their abilities, thought starting with a 1200 rating does not accuratley portray the skill of the individual.


  • #154

    i'm rated 1200 and i don't play golf

    come get me


  • #155
    thats how u start.
  • #156
    I think ratings do matter to serious chess players. I have never met one that it didnt matter to. Are you a serious chess player? I consider myself a serious chess player but the only rating that matters to me is my uscf and fide otb classic chess ratings. Online ratings dont matter to me at all and neither do blitz or rapid chess ratings.

     


  • #157
    I'm pretty new to chess and I'm not familiar with the uscf & fide otb classic chess ratings.  How does one get rated under these systems and how are they different from the on line ratings?
  • #158

    This thread is humourous - i was puzzled at the "Why then did I go down from 1200 (to 1361)" - then i read on and realised that the poster thought ratings were like golf handicaps. Broke into a smile - (i was feeling somewhat tense for reasons not related to websites) - and feeling relaxed - it was theraputic! Thanks, MickBJ!

      (the above is meant seriously! i am *not* taking a dig at anyone. Perish the thought...)


  • #159
    By the way, internet-chess ratings (say fics or icc) matter in a way - it you play too casually for a long session your rating falls abnormally below your "normal" at the relevant site - so you tend not to get opponents against whom you can play a good game (until your ratings pick up again).
  • #160
    Reb wrote: I think ratings do matter to serious chess players. I have never met one that it didnt matter to. Are you a serious chess player? I consider myself a serious chess player but the only rating that matters to me is my uscf and fide otb classic chess ratings. Online ratings dont matter to me at all and neither do blitz or rapid chess ratings.

     

    I agree with the assertion that ratings do matter to serious players. I do not agree however that OTB ratings have some superior status to correspondence or on-line ratings. Why does he think that people who play correspondence chess or online chess cannot be serious players? Not everyone has the opportunity or time to play otb....I myself have limited time even to play online, but I take each game seriously and give it as much thought as I can within the time available. My rating is not too bad but I would desperately like it to be better.


     


or Join

Online Now