If, as seems to be the opinion of many of the respondents of this thread (myself included), that the average opponent rating of your opponent can provide some additional insight into the strength of your opponent, then it stands to reason that the average opponent rating of your opponent's opponents also has some relevance.
And if, the average opponent rating of your opponent's opponents can provide some additional insight....
If, as seems to be the opinion of many of the respondents of this thread (myself included), that the average opponent rating of your opponent can provide some additional insight into the strength of your opponent, then it stands to reason that the average opponent rating of your opponent's opponents also has some relevance.
And if, the average opponent rating of your opponent's opponents can provide some additional insight....
i think you're right. this makes my wife a little miffed though cuz--more time at the computer for me. haha. i've found myslef going about 3 deep into my opponents and their opponents and on.
also, this idea of raising--as it's been pointed out, can take a really long time as you play more games and as you yourself raise your rating. it's leading, but also it must be a little misleading.
haha. I find this topic a little taboo in my own mind.
I've always avoided playing people rated lower because I think the lower the opponent, the more combined blunders we're having on a board - which doesn't allow me to enjoy my wins as much. I selfishly create tournaments whose floor rating is approximately mine.
From what I've noticed the higher rated you are...the more difficult it is to keep a higher Opponent Average Rating esp. if you want to play in tournaments, I imagine.
Thanks precipitato,
what I meant was that I am too lazy to find tournaments with limitations such as those and my desire to finally do well in a tournament exceeds that of my desire to get my average opponent rating over 1700 (finally) :)
This post was interesting to me because it precisely addressed what I have privately thought. I began on Chess.com at the recommendation of a friend, as a way to get back into chess. It had been many years since I last played. I have used the site predominately to play friends, many of whom I introduced to the site. As a result many of my opponents were twelve hundred levels with varying degrees of experience. The friends who intro'd me to the site however were rated much higher. As a result of playing many low rated players and a couple higher, my OAR is significantly lower than my personal rating. I do believe my personal rating is inflated. The only way to rectify the situation is for me to challenge higher rated players. This has just been difficult because I already have more games than I can handle playing friends.
I don't know what formula is used in determining rating adjustments for individual games, but it would be nice if the quality of the game could be judged... meaning - it seems silly that my score should increase if I am barely able to defeat an opponent rated much less than myself. I would think it should in fact decrease. Does that happen?
Thoughts?
my average opponent rating is low. because i give lessons to people with low ratings
during my first 100 to 150 games (or so) of online chess, i never really paid much attention to what my opponents' average opponent ratings were. i've started to look at this a bit more. i'm wondering how telling you all think this stat is. lately, i've taken to playing higher rated player and in the past couple of weeks my opponent's average rating has climbed from the mid 1400s to the mid 1500s. this makes me happy as i feel like i'm playing a higher quality opponent. that being said, i've also started losing more than i was a few weeks ago. losing is painful when you're putting a lot of effort into games, but it's not so bad to lose 5 or 6 games to 1800s with the odd win here or there, if you feel like you're getting better.
anyway, i started looking at some of my opponents that i either didn't really buy their rating as matching their play or that i was able to beat pretty well. not across the board mind you, but some of them had really low O'sAR (easier to type). one high 1700 i played had an OAR of like 1400 or something. i'm thinking--lame. step it up pal. it's like Man United sweeping through the 1rst division. anyway, i'm wondering if any of you look at this. how telling do you think it is? how important is it to play people at or above your own rating? is it considered by anyone else here--kinda lame to always play down to be able to rack up wins? i suppose it's only opinion but i hope to generate some discussion.
Well its kind of a catch 22. When you get on here you have a provisional rating of 1200... unless you were invited by a higher rated player... no "higher rated" player is going to play a 1200 so you have to play a bunch of lower rated players first. Some of the "seek" preferences won't even allow you to play higher rated persons. When I cracked 2000 rating on here... I started to notice that all of these "new seeks" would show up. (They had all set a floor that they didn't want to play anyone under 2000)... but naturally... you are going to have to offset all of the lower players you had to play earlier to build your rating. I've been playing some pretty high rated opponents but my average is still only about 1700 1800ish for a player because they are calculating my games I had when I first started here to my average.
What is oar?
I was surprised to see my avg opponent is in the 1600's. I always try and play someone at least my rating or higher. Then again sometimes peoples ratings drop about 200 points by the time our games are over.
In Chess winning isn't really everything. Sometimes the Greater player need not be better than the weaker ones. Losing games are just as important as winning ones.
The only goal is to discover how to improve your play and you just realise this as you get to find playing stronger players just as easy as the weaker ones! So play on and let the Battle Begin!!
-P-
yeah very zen and all, but that's not really what i'm talking about. i think it's a fairly universal belief in chess that learning from your losses and mistakes is a great source for becoming a better player. that's not what we're talking about. i want to talk about opponent's average rating and how each player reads that stat. so Phyyrrus, how do you feel about your OAR or other's OARs? hehe
i like flags,
I simply don't mind the OAR when I play. It's just an indicator to know where you stand in the field. Why I often found greater depth on playing 1300 guys than the 1500!
So if you ask me if your AOR is 1700 and I'm 1400, man that doesn't tell me your a sure winner fella.The one thing it does indicate to me is I can't afford too much goof offs playing yah coz I have to respect the status of your rating.
But never would I shudder and fear you to crush me coz of them ratings.If you notice more highly rated guys are accepting challenges from people even 200 points lower than they are.
Now I ask you why so? So they can easily gain more points? If that's the case it's no longer Chess for me but a rating game. Again JMHO 
-P- (a week ago 1500+ now 1400+ tomorrow who knows eh?)
I think it's pretty pathetic when I see players that have OAR's of several hundred pts. below their actual rating.I think they're clearly playing for the ratings.as a rule of thumb I think it's ok to have an OAR of no more than 100 pts. below your actual rating (with exception to 2200+ players,cause it's hard to find anyone in those ratings to play with,especially in live chess)
playing weaker players all the time is like a bodybuilder lifting light weights all the time.no muscle mass will be gained this way,in fact muscle mass will go down.if you don't push yourself to the limit then you won't improve much.
I think it's pretty pathetic when I see players that have OAR's of several hundred pts. below their actual rating.I think they're clearly playing for the ratings.as a rule of thumb I think it's ok to have an OAR of no more than 100 pts. below your actual rating (with exception to 2200+ players,cause it's hard to find anyone in those ratings to play with,especially in live chess)
playing weaker players all the time is like a bodybuilder lifting light weights all the time.no muscle mass will be gained this way,in fact muscle mass will go down.if you don't push yourself to the limit then you won't improve much.
First of all you obviously don't know anything about weightlifting and second my opponents avg rating is over 200 points less then mine. I guarantee you I challenge myself-so your arbitrary 100 points really don't mean anything.
oh and people. Keep in mind if you are playing tournaments your oar will decrease.
I think it's pretty pathetic when I see players that have OAR's of several hundred pts. below their actual rating.I think they're clearly playing for the ratings.as a rule of thumb I think it's ok to have an OAR of no more than 100 pts. below your actual rating (with exception to 2200+ players,cause it's hard to find anyone in those ratings to play with,especially in live chess)
playing weaker players all the time is like a bodybuilder lifting light weights all the time.no muscle mass will be gained this way,in fact muscle mass will go down.if you don't push yourself to the limit then you won't improve much.
ha.. well I bet you didnt get from not know how to play chess to 1900 in one and a half years... if your a diamond member you can see my rating when i first came to chess.com. you're basically saying im pathetic when you can't beat me in a chess game lol.
I don't want to be rude or anything, but I've read a lot of nonsense here. My Oar is A LOT below my rating and I honestly think the only thing it talks about is this: For every high level game I play, I finished 5 or more low level games. Period.
About some of the things many of you say:
1- Lower Oar means they "don't deserve" their rating / They play lower oponents to "climb".
Rating is a mathematical result of your games! If you play lower rated oponents you get arround 1 point for the win... and if you ever blunder or loose a game you'll get severely punished with -120 or so. Now tell me HOW this is of any use to "climb" with my rating.
2- They play lower rated oponents because they're afraid to loose.
This may be true for some people. But there can be a zillion reasons for it besides that. I, for instance, played a couple group tourneys and the average rating of the players happen to be quite lower than mine. I also played 13 games with someone rated a lot lower than me, simply becasue I enjoy the games and good sportsmanship of the guy.
So.. the only thing that you could state is that players with lower Oar have less experience against higher rated players. Whatever that means... And the other thing is they probably aren't the competitive mad-for-the-challenge kind of player. But then again... it will tell you nothing for sure about their actual strength.
Plus you have some players who might be helping lower rated players as one poster mentioned. I don't think people have to feel scared to do that because their OAR will drop.
Only time I've ever looked at someone's OAR is when I had an opponent (Malko) that I would consistently lose to and yet his rating was always a bit lower than mine. I went to check his OAR and found that it's still 100 pts below mine...I stopped paying attention to OAR after that.
i think many of us are taking OAR way to literally. it is nothing more than an average--taken from your first game through your most recent. EVERY opponent you've ever played online is average into it. if you are getting better and your rating is climbing, there must have been times when you were playing someone rated lower than you are now. i think we can see something from it though. if person's OAR is considerabley lower than their own rating, it's probably worth sifting through some recent games to see who they're playing. i've done this for a few of my oipponents and i've seen that some are playing games against opponents that are lower than they are--way lower. i do find this kinda lame--personally. i don't mind mixing in a cheap game from time to time but for me, i want my OAR to match or come close to matching my own rating.
i don't think it's universal that if a person has a low OAR they are choosing to only play "easy" opponents becasue they are afraid to lose. this may be the case for some and at some times, but it's pretty silly to think this is the predominant standard.
If, as seems to be the opinion of many of the respondents of this thread (myself included), that the average opponent rating of your opponent can provide some additional insight into the strength of your opponent, then it stands to reason that the average opponent rating of your opponent's opponents also has some relevance.
And if, the average opponent rating of your opponent's opponents can provide some additional insight....
It would be helpful if the Glicko RD was easily and freely viewable since it's supposed to be an accurate barometer of rating reliablity (in theory). I'm curious if you've tried this approach since you're a diamond member and have access to everyone's statistics. Seems easier than looking up several generations of OAR....
Well, as far as OAR, I really don't actually look past my opponent's. I agree that RD would be a great number to move onto the main stats dashboard that is available to all members, but since it's buried I never really look at it.
I agree that in theory it's supposed to give us the same type in information that we're using OAR for, but in practice I still think that at least your immediate opponent's OAR provides some additional information that you just can't get from RD.
As an extreme example, ChessNetwork who is rated 4000+ on live chess achieved that rating by playing a huge number of games against players far lower rated. This would lead to a very small RD, and just looking at rating and RD would lead one to believe that the 4000+ rating was quite accurate. Only after looking at the average opponent rating would you get the complete picture.
speaking of seeing a rating with and without time-outs added in--i have an opponent in a tournament whose rating is 1405 (or something) but his OAR is 1600-something. so i started digging a bit deeper. dude lost like 100 games in a row. i haven't see the games yet but obviously something is fishy. now this guys is running around like a 1400 when in fact he's probably more like a 1700 or 1800. it would be so nice to know this going in. however, maybe not knowing keeps my game more pure. but i doubt it.
minaton-- you can enter tournaments that have a minimum rating requirement (1900 up, e.g.).
I think the value of playing opponents who are stronger than oneself cannot be overstated. To truly improve at chess or at anything for that matter, it is extremely important to always be surrounded by your betters, so to be continually challenged and inspired to learn from them. Once you attain their level, challenge the next level of better ones! I actually feel my game noticeably suffer when I play too much against weaker opponents and then attempt to face stronger ones again. Sloppy or lazy play and bad habits (that a strong opponent would immediately punish) are reinforced when weaker opponents lets us get away with them.