This has been known for a long time, but I had no idea it was this terrible. LOL
I played a game with 96.5% accuracy (including one "brilliant") and I got a rating of 1500. Hikaru plays a game with ~80% accuracy and it gives him a rating of around 2700 or above. (Granted, the game I played was only 15 moves, but still.)
I thought that was bad, but this is a whole new level.
No one takes these enhancements seriously except the marketing department.
A few years ago, game review focused on data. There were overall accuracy percentages, as well as accuracy broken down by each piece. Average move times were included. Quite a bit more, too.
The problem with data is that it requires knowledge and intelligence to use. In order to broaden the appeal of game review to a larger pool of chess players, it made sense to offer meaningless information that seems attractive. You now have a personal coach with a limited understanding of perhaps a dozen chess concepts.
Yeah also love the "AI coach" spouting nonsense. It attempts to explain a meaning of a move by detecting a pattern, but usually misses the bigger picture of why that move was important. But seriously it's not impossible to have the estimated rating to give something that reflects the truth atleast.
Yeah also love the "AI coach" spouting nonsense. It attempts to explain a meaning of a move by detecting a pattern, but usually misses the bigger picture of why that move was important. But seriously it's not impossible to have the estimated rating to give something that reflects the truth atleast.
Yes, but if you have watched streamers play "Guess the Elo", you know it's not easy for them to be accurate in many situations.
Someone at chess.com thought it might be useful for people to get an assessment of how they played in a game. Accuracy scores are hard to interpret. It seems reasonable to me that people play better or worse than their ratings in most games and that you can look at the multiple phases of the game to make a useful assessment of that play.
That's all it is. A tool to help players focus on the parts of their games that need work.
It is not deceitful. It is not a lie.
They really need to stream line the site take out all the fancy stuff and just get back to what's most important which is the chess, the lag is terrible
Yeah also love the "AI coach" spouting nonsense. It attempts to explain a meaning of a move by detecting a pattern, but usually misses the bigger picture of why that move was important. But seriously it's not impossible to have the estimated rating to give something that reflects the truth atleast.
Yes, but if you have watched streamers play "Guess the Elo", you know it's not easy for them to be accurate in many situations.
Someone at chess.com thought it might be useful for people to get an assessment of how they played in a game. Accuracy scores are hard to interpret. It seems reasonable to me that people play better or worse than their ratings in most games and that you can look at the multiple phases of the game to make a useful assessment of that play.
That's all it is. A tool to help players focus on the parts of their games that need work.
It is not deceitful. It is not a lie.
I haven no idea what you try to say with this post. Of course it's hard to make an estimation of a rating based on moves made in one game, but that's what the metric pretends to be in the chess.com game review.
But it is none of that. It doesn't even attempt to give you an accurate estimation based on your play. That is proved by the image in my opening post. It is a random number that has nothing (well, very little) to do with how you played, but is mostly just based on your actual rating. So yes, it is presented as something it is not, it is a lie and deceit by chess.com to make their product look better than it is.
Chess.com game review presents a "game rating" for the particular game you're reviewing. The description is: "This gives an estimation of a players rating based on a single game".
That is a lie. The estimation is not based on the game, but it's actually most based on the players actual rating playing the game. The same game by a 1500 or a 2500 yield a different "game rating". It is therefore just deceit and the game review either can't or wont produce an accurate estimation only based on the game. It's laughable and deceitful to present it as such. Below an example just how ridiculous it is.
A 1500 could play a full game at 99% and they wont get such a high estimate.