Fast Rating Switch?
Sort:
Why does what your rating is bother you so much? Is your pride that big? Just play chess and have fun. If you like/love chess, you'll get better at it in time and you will continue to improve no matter what the size of the number by your name is.
I wonder if chess.com is still too new. Once there are lots of established players it should become easier to find a game against somebody with a more accurate ratings.
Well blacman I think you misunderstood what I said, the method I'm hinting is that before the games STARTS, you points gained/lost for each outcome (win,loss,draw) are calculated THEN and stay stable, and are then applied at the end of the game. That would not interfere with rating changes as you perceived.
HotFlow wrote:
I'm not interested in the number but it is useful for finding opponents around your level, however if I get beaten by a new player whose rating is 1200 becuase they are new here but in real life they are much higher then me, add that in a few times then my rating is out of sync and I'm not sure what my true level of play is and what opponent I should be looking for to challenge myself. That isnt my problem right now however.
My problem at the moment is my rating is over inflated and I think that becuase I keep coming up against new players who have won a 1/2 games got an inflated rating and in turn has inflated mine.
Anyways as I say the points are not important to me but I like to have a guide when I'm looking for a challenging game. Offlate however I don't think I've played anyone whose rating has reflected their play.
No matter what my rating is, I play anybody and everybody, rated or unrated. I win and lose alot, but I have fun. Even if it means that I am playing a new chess player who barely knows how the pieces move. He needs the chance to play better players too. Remember, there were sronger players who once played you when you were a beginner.
greyfox wrote: HotFlow wrote: I dislike the games against new 1200 rated opponents also, really throws rating out of sink.
but you also started with a 1200 rating right?? if you move back the time you can say that to yourself my friend.
Indeed. Which is why I am willing to play those with 1200 ratings :D
Ratings are dynamic and certainly not accurate. (You start at chess.com with 1200 is that accurate?)
Ratings is not a direct measurement tool but rather a statistical instrument that predict how strong you are.
Ratings become more and more accurate the more games are played and the less points your ratings will drop or increase.
Your opponent is still the same person of the same strenght you start with . Unless you truely improve significantly during the course of the game.
My best advice is if this bothers you is to look at the players RD in their stats to see how accurate their ratings are.
MolotovRuss wrote: Well blacman I think you misunderstood what I said, the method I'm hinting is that before the games STARTS, you points gained/lost for each outcome (win,loss,draw) are calculated THEN and stay stable, and are then applied at the end of the game. That would not interfere with rating changes as you perceived.
I completely agree. When you start a game, you get told how many points you get for a win, how many points to lose for a loss, and how many points you gain/lose for a draw. That should remain the same regardless of how many other games the opponent plays.
Ratings can and should be recalculated after every win, but those ratings should only be taken into account for NEW games. Games already in progress should not be affected by the new rating of a player.
Oct 28, 2007
0
#28
Hotflow, a rating alone is usually not enough to guestimate a player's strength. It's best to look at # of games played, RD, win/loss record also. If someone is 1500 but is 8-0, then they very well could be 2300. :)
I thought it was the other way around, that when you start a game you lock in your rating as well as your opponents, and the end result is based on those scores, not the fluxuating scores. Is there a situation where you'd want to throw another concurrent game so you're below your opponent when you win so your score goes up even more, ending up in a bigger plus to your rating? I'm not sure and really don't care to find out, I'd just rather play a straight-up game, but I think the scoring per game should reflect the starting rating stat.
Oct 29, 2007
0
#30
Hotflow, I'm guessing this is a systemic issue, based on the fact that the entire "system/population of ratings" is only 3-4 months old. In most other systems you've played on, the pool of ratings has been long established for years before you hop in and start playing in them. I think as time goes on, you will see ratings gravitate to more accurate levels. With such a large influx of new players and the rating system being only a few months old, this is going to mean lots of inaccurate ratings. For any given game won or lost, if you feel the rating points gained or lost are incorrect, then let me know, but I haven't seen this issue. As long as its adjusting ratings for each game correctly, then there probably aren't any bugs in the code.
Ratings are and should be calculated using the player's rating at the conclusion of the game. Simply put, this is the most accurate rating to use in the formula.
Each player's rating is an estimate of their ability relative to the other players in the rating pool based on their past performance. This estimate can be refined whenever new infomration is available -- i.e. when a player completes a game, the rating is adjusted based on the outcome of the game and the strength of the opponent. In order for the estimate to be improved, the most accurate estimate of the strength of the opponent should be used. If the opponent's rating at the start of the game was more accurate than it is at the end of the game, then the whole rating system is useless.
The only mathematically consistent way to make good estimates for player's ratings is to use the best estimate of your opponent -- their current rating.
I'm sure the people running chess.com understand this and you'll never see the ratings implemented differently.
Maybe the new users, say those who played <7 games, could have a restriction so they can play only other new users? That would create kind of a newbie championship where after a number of played games the user would have a fairly accurate rating or at least an indication of their level of play.
Just a thought...
The only way to get an accurate rating is to play other players with accurate ratings. Playing other new players with inaccurate ratings won't help. Imagine a situation where a bunch of good players sign up and play each other. Despite the fact that they're all good, a few of them are going to have really low ratings. Similar for a group of bad players all playing each other.
Maybe a small warning saying "This opponent has played fewer than 20 games and is more likely to have an inaccurate rating" or something to that effect would be helpful.
