Forums

Feels like competition is harder at a given rating now.

CooloutAC
Paleobotanical wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:

Again you are saying the rating goes down with influx of new players which I agree was your original comment.  But yet you now disagree the average rating will go up when new or low rated players then leave or stop coming?  I'm still not understanding the logic there bud.

 

An influx of new, bad players will lower the overall distribution at the start, while those players get Glicko's special treatment for being new and their ratings are dropping rapidly.  But, the distribution changing does not mean that an individual player's rating moves the same direction.  In fact, the distribution as a whole can move downward while existing individual players' ratings stay the same, or go up.  Those are two entirely separate things.

Put it another way:  Depending on why it's happening, the average going up or down may or may not mean your own personal rating goes up or down.

However, an enormous influx of new players normally will do two things:  (1) lower the aggregate rating of the distribution overall and (2) drive existing players' individual ratings up or down depending on exactly how fast the new, bad players are either learning to play (which would cause deflation) or churning (which would pump points into the existing players, causing inflation.)

There are lots of moving parts and a number of possible scenarios with different results, both aggregate and individual.

I thought lichess uses glicko and chess.com uses elo.  

And again, I'm not disagreeing with any of that and it doesn't need repeating.  Its what me and other posters have indicated is the case all throughout this thread.   The question now is why you don't think the opposite is also true.  Which is when lots of new players then stop playing that the avg goes back up.

Paleobotanical
CooloutAC wrote:

I thought lichess uses glicko and chess.com uses elo.  

And again, I'm not disagreeing with any of that and it doesn't need repeating.   The question now is why you don't think the opposite is also true.  When lots of new players then stop playing that the avg goes back up.

 

Chess.com uses Glicko, lichess uses the updated Glicko-2, FIDE uses Elo, USCF uses a hybrid Glicko-Elo system that Mark Glickman (creator of Glicko and Glicko-2) helped create, which is documented here.

I'm not saying the average rating may not go up if lots of new players leave, depending on who leaves and how that changes the distribution.  I am saying that individuals left behind are more likely to see their personal scores decrease when low-rated new players leave.  The reason is because play at or around the rating floor creates upward pressure on all the ratings above, and new players leaving will tend to relieve that pressure.

rambonthala

Yeah, its kind of interesting, I was 2300, and dropped to low 2000 level, which means i could be idiot or people are just playing better and the standards are raising.

CooloutAC
rambonthala wrote:

Yeah, its kind of interesting, I was 2300, and dropped to low 2000 level, which means i could be idiot or people are just playing better and the standards are raising.

I think the fad is wearing off.  Would be interesting to see the amount of active players now compared to last year.

CooloutAC
Paleobotanical wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:

I thought lichess uses glicko and chess.com uses elo.  

And again, I'm not disagreeing with any of that and it doesn't need repeating.   The question now is why you don't think the opposite is also true.  When lots of new players then stop playing that the avg goes back up.

 

Chess.com uses Glicko, lichess uses the updated Glicko-2, FIDE uses Elo, USCF uses a hybrid Glicko-Elo system that Mark Glickman (creator of Glicko and Glicko-2) helped create, which is documented here.

I'm not saying the average rating may not go up if lots of new players leave, depending on who leaves and how that changes the distribution.  I am saying that individuals left behind are more likely to see their personal scores decrease when low-rated new players leave.  The reason is because play at or around the rating floor creates upward pressure on all the ratings above, and new players leaving will tend to relieve that pressure.

 

So you are saying they decrease when new players join, and also decrease when they leave?   So players coming in going have no effect on inflation,  only deflation?   I'm not understanding the logic there.

Paleobotanical
CooloutAC wrote:

So you are saying they decrease when new players join, and also decrease when they leave?   So players coming in going have no effect on inflation,  only deflation?   I'm not understanding the logic there.

 

No, I never said the high rated players' ratings decrease when new players come in.  The distribution can move lower while individuals stay the same or move higher (because the distribution shifts when you add more people at the bottom.)

CooloutAC
Paleobotanical wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:

So you are saying they decrease when new players join, and also decrease when they leave?   So players coming in going have no effect on inflation,  only deflation?   I'm not understanding the logic there.

 

No, I never said the high rated players' ratings decrease when new players come in.  The distribution can move lower while individuals stay the same or move higher (because the distribution shifts when you add more people at the bottom.)

First of all we are talking about the average rating.  and you indeed said that over and over.  Which is why I don't understand why you think you are of a different opinion then the rest of us.    I think you are making it too complicated then it has to be.  If this makes you feel intellectual then so be it.   But I personally think you are out to lunch at this point lol.

So you basically feel the average comes down the more new players come into the pool,  and at the same time you think the average rating does down when new players leave the pool.   It just doesn't make any common sense to me bud.  I agree with your first part but not the last.

Paleobotanical
CooloutAC wrote:

First of all we are talking about the average rating. 

 

What?  I'm not talking about average rating at all.  Read my first post, it's all about my individual rating.  I'm talking about whether other individual existing players feel they're moving down or up, not what's happening to the distribution or the average (which could be going the opposite direction, depending on who's leaving.)

CooloutAC
Paleobotanical wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:

First of all we are talking about the average rating. 

 

What?  I'm not talking about average rating at all.  Read my first post, it's all about my individual rating.  I'm talking about whether other individual existing players feel they're moving down or up, not what's happening to the distribution or the average (which could be going the opposite direction, depending on who's leaving.)

I would say the way you judge if the playerbase is affected,  is by the average rating.   I guess I was wrong to assume that as common sense.  Maybe i'm wrong.   lol

But I guess now you are amitting what me and others have said and you can udnerstand why you were making no sense.   Yes.   with players leaving the ratings would not continue to go down as they did because of them joining.  Thankyou.

Paleobotanical
CooloutAC wrote:

I would say the way you judge if the playerbase is affected,  is by the average rating.   I guess I was wrong to assume that as common sense.  Maybe i'm wrong.   lol

 

Yeah, ok.  Here's an example.  Let's say you have a distribution with two groups, low rated and high rated.  Low rated have ratings 1-5 and high rated have ratings 10-14.  The average is 7.7.  Here's a plot of how many people are at each rating:

 

Now, let's say all the high players move down one rating point.  The person at 10 goes to 9, person at 14 goes to 13.  And, all the low players leave.  Then you get this.  Even though all those people moved down in rating, the average went up from 7.7 to 11:

 

That's a trivial example showing that the way the average moves doesn't tell you how individual ratings move.

CooloutAC
Paleobotanical wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:

I would say the way you judge if the playerbase is affected,  is by the average rating.   I guess I was wrong to assume that as common sense.  Maybe i'm wrong.   lol

 

Yeah, ok.  Here's an example.  Let's say you have a distribution with two groups, low rated and high rated.  Low rated have ratings 1-5 and high rated have ratings 10-14.  The average is 7.7.  Here's a plot of how many people are at each rating:

 

 

Now, let's say all the high players move down one rating point.  The person at 10 goes to 9, person at 14 goes to 13.  And, all the low players leave.  Then you get this.  Even though all those people moved down in rating, the average went up from 7.7 to 11:

 

 

That's a trivial example showing that the way the average moves doesn't tell you how individual ratings move.

The first graph is not based in any kind of reality though.  Again you are making this too complicated and getting lost in the weeds bud.

Duckfest
CooloutAC wrote:

The first graph is not based in any kind of reality though.  Again you are making this too complicated and getting lost in the weeds bud.

 

I'm confounded by this exchange. It has a semblance of an interesting conversation. I'm also amused.

@Paleobotanical , can you please explain why you would use graphs that are not based in any kind of reality? Also, why would you use it at all? Apparently, explaining an abstract concept with a simplified visual representation is making it too complicated . It seems you are getting lost in the weeds. GL explaining this.

Paleobotanical
Duckfest wrote:

@Paleobotanical , can you please explain why you would use graphs that are not based in any kind of reality? Also, why would you use it at all? Apparently, explaining an abstract concept with a simplified visual representation is making it too complicated . It seems you are getting lost in the weeds. GL explaining this.

 

Sure.  He says: "I would say the way you judge if the playerbase is affected, is by the average rating. I guess I was wrong to assume that as common sense. Maybe i'm wrong. lol"

The charts make the purely mathematical point that if a bunch of people drop out at the low end, the average can move up due to their leaving at the very same time that the ratings of everyone who remains drop (or stay the same, or increase.)  In other words, the average doesn't tell you what's happening to any particular subgroup of the whole, even if that subgroup is "everyone who hasn't quit."

In other words, if "common sense" tells you that the average is a good proxy for what individuals are experiencing with their own rating movement, either individually or in the aggregate, you can't necessarily trust it.

All this, by the way, is a response to "no the average is moving X direction so people's ratings must be moving that direction too."  That would be true only if nobody could join or leave.

(BTW I have to say I'm really baffled by this idea that ratings, which are entirely an artifact of modern statistics, should behave completely intuitively and not require any mathematical concepts at all to understand and discuss.  Why would you ever think that were the case?)

CooloutAC
Duckfest wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:

The first graph is not based in any kind of reality though.  Again you are making this too complicated and getting lost in the weeds bud.

 

I'm confounded by this exchange. It has a semblance of an interesting conversation. I'm also amused.

@Paleobotanical , can you please explain why you would use graphs that are not based in any kind of reality? Also, why would you use it at all? Apparently, explaining an abstract concept with a simplified visual representation is making it too complicated . It seems you are getting lost in the weeds. GL explaining this.

I'm baffled you ignore chess.com's own graphs and their own average rating history.   You are trying to prove a theory when you already have the results.   It took you almost half a dozen posts for you to finally admit that you agree with what me and another posters were saying, but you now claim we were talking about the average rating and you aren't.    I still don't understand why it's not common sense  the average rating reflects the general trend in playerbase ratings.  isnt that what the average means?  Why would individuals giving you their individual experience Be related to anything?   Who would even assume that's what you were looking for?