Once a player gets a stable rating their win percentage is going to trend towards 50%
New way of rating
Sort:
Rather like a runner going out training and realising the tank is empty on that particular day I do think chess play can fall into a similar catagory legitimate exeptions will arise from time to time but in the main you are what you eat.
Chess ratings are not measured on an absolute scale like meters or kilograms. There is no universal definition for what an 1800 plays like.
Rating systems are specifically designed to track the results (win/draw/loss) of players in a common pool. Ratings directly measure results, which is an approximation of skill. So, for example, being 1800 on chess.com in blitz games and being 1800 USCF at slow OTB games or not at all the same thing.
It can be interesting to have an algorithm estimate your rating on how you play, but the result is based on many assumptions (that may or may not be valid) that the coder makes.
Here is an idea. Wheather its good or bad you can decide.
Instead of our chess rarings coming from wins and looses , how about our rating coming form an averaage of the end game ratings ? An example would be an low rating of 800 and a high rating of 1700 would give a elo of 1250. Which represents an average of your play.
My thought is why should you loose rating points because of a loss, espicaly if you play well above your rating and loose for what ever reason. let that effect your win percentsge not your rating number?
This new way would have you with two numbers and elo and a winning percentage number.
So you could tell people your a 1200 elo with a 56 percent win rate.
If you think this is a dumb idea never mind...But I believe this would leed to better chess.
Your thoughts.