Question: Does OAR also reflect unrated games? I don't think it should...but does it?
Opponent's Average Rating
Sort:
When someone has a rating that falls between their average loss and their average win I assume that things are normal. It makes sense that they are rated above the players they are winning against and below those players they tend to lose to.
However, when someone has a rating that lies above their average opponent rating when losingI look a bit further. For instance a player rated 1700 who is losing against 1550. I look to see if this player is suddenly "hot", that is winning more and against better players than before. Chess players can reach periods of little improvement followed by a ratings spike when some new concept unlocks itself to us. I consider this to be a warning sign and make sure to really be on my toes against this opponent.
The other consideration to look for is if the player is selecting opponents carefully. If this is the case I consider the rating to be inflated and procede with a fairly normal game.
May 7, 2009
0
#65
richie_and_oprah wrote:
In a situation in which many games are hand choosen, I think the combination of numbers: OAR, Average Opponent Rating in wins, and Average Opponent Rating in loses tells a lot about a players strengths and the type of player they think they are and fashion themselves to be.
hmm...Average Opponent Rating in Wins and Losses would be far more interesting, I think. I'm going to scamper off to look at mine.
May 7, 2009
0
#66
Examples like the one in post #74 make me resent the entire OAR thing. I don't want players feeling they have to defend their rating by avoiding lower rated players. I think that's nonsense.
And I honestly think as you get to 2000 and up, it gets harder and harder to make certain that the majority of your opponents are at your level and above...unless you're an absolute snob about it. And seriously...it seems strange that a poor 2000 rated person would have such a drop in their OAR by playing a 1400...and yet only yield 1 pt if that to their rating.
Hmmm... thats something I never really thought about. Very well put Paul... I've been playing a number of games against a good friend of mine, I'm signifigantly better, so keep winning... 6 in a row now... I think I'll start doing unrated games from now on on that count... Just checked out my AOR for wins and it looks like I'm a dick who picks on n00bs now :p
I think, on top of what you were saying though, in your solution, I would add
d)Separate averages for tournament games and non-tournament games.
I would never ever pick an open seek for a player who was a lot lower than me (Rating minus Glicko -ish...?) but I get paired against them plenty of times in tournament games. There should be a noted difference between games you sought out and games you were obligated to play.
May 7, 2009
0
#68
yeah, really great point. i have a friend here who is rated about 500 point higher than me and we play a lot. i'm totally bringing his OAR down. plus he gets almost nothing for beating me. now i'm sure this doesn't really matter much to him as we are friends and play OTB as well. mostly he talks to me about my games as we play and gives me pointers and ideas. kind of a tutor if you will. i don't think OAR should be done away with but it should be taken into consideration as an average only--i think.
May 7, 2009
0
#70
It may be true that the person with the lower OsAR gets easier wins, but they also need twice as many wins to reach the same rating.
May 7, 2009
0
#71
yeah i get that--maybe not twice, but some percentage. although i'm not sure beating two 1200s as valuable as beating one 1450. or two 1700s equal to one 2000 (depending on your level of play of course). maybe though
May 7, 2009
0
#72
richie_and_oprah wrote:
AfafBouardi wrote:
Examples like the one in post #74 make me resent the entire OAR thing. I don't want players feeling they have to defend their rating by avoiding lower rated players. I think that's nonsense.
Intrawebs rule of engagement 101: never defend.
Numbers are what numbers are. They say all kinds of things to all kinds of peoples. Some will choose to see god, some their own importance, some their lack of self worth.
One of the most enjoyable aspects of intravoyeurism is seeing all the variant reactions to things that have only as much significance as those reactors decide and henceforth volunteer to share their overlaping template for us to see.
richie_and_oprah, you connoisseur of the human soul. You. are. too. much.
Some people just want to boost their rating by destroying people 200-300 below them. I don't really see the advantage to this; entering any chess.com tournament will rack up the losses for them. I always try to keep my avg opp rating a bit above my own rating...it's worked well so far.
May 7, 2009
0
#74
Beating people rated 200 pts below you is an important skill. This is the world that top players live in. When they go to a tourney, maybe a 7 round tourney, probably 4-5 of their games are against people much lower rated than they are. And they have many games like this for the year. They are expected to win 90+% of these games, and maybe draw 9 of the last 10, so losing maybe 1 in 100 games. Very tough to do.
I just think it misses the mark a little bit to think that these people are artifically inflating their rating. I would argue instead that they are continuing to work on an aspect of their game which may not need additional help at this time, and should perhaps work on beating people at their level. But I would also say the same about people who don't win all the games they are "supposed to win" - they should work on it, even if they consider it boring.
May 9, 2009
0
#75
I solved it in a different manner. I have set a restriction, so that people below 1500 cannot play against me. It's a bit odd, but I think that chances of loosing to 1400 and 1500+ opponent are almost equal (missing a move and loosing material), whereas in the first case my penalty for the loss is much higher.
May 9, 2009
0
#76
not sure i'd go that far. i do like to play lower rated players from time to time. i almost always play someone rated similarly or higher than me, but every once in a while it's good to get a lower rated opponent.
DaPharaoh wrote:
if anyone thinks that my rating is high only because I play lower rated opponents then I challenge them to challenge me I'm confident in my ability against anyone less then 2000
Judging from your post, you sound unsure. If your confident you wouldn't challenge every Joe on chess.com.
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
Beating people rated 200 pts below you is an important skill. This is the world that top players live in. When they go to a tourney, maybe a 7 round tourney, probably 4-5 of their games are against people much lower rated than they are. And they have many games like this for the year. They are expected to win 90+% of these games, and maybe draw 9 of the last 10, so losing maybe 1 in 100 games. Very tough to do.
I just think it misses the mark a little bit to think that these people are artifically inflating their rating. I would argue instead that they are continuing to work on an aspect of their game which may not need additional help at this time, and should perhaps work on beating people at their level. But I would also say the same about people who don't win all the games they are "supposed to win" - they should work on it, even if they consider it boring.
That is exactly why people are 300 pts above their opponents average rating. They must beat all that play even and below, and work their way up with opponents. it's helped my game immensely. Also, people like me who came from as low as 900 to, for instance 1750, have a lot of games below 1750 to work up to opponents at that level. Therefore, it takes time to gain more opponent rating averages when you've been working upward. This may not make sense to you all, but that is the best way I can explain it.
Socket
May 9, 2009
0
#79
Yes - when I see someone with a low OAR relative to their rating my first thought is "lame" - well, maybe a bit more colorful.... So I look at mine - My rating cycles about 100-150 points over a month - at the low end, my rating is about equal to my OAR, at the high end, my OAR is about 100 pts lower. Am I lame - am I cherry-picking? My OAR has come up about 30 points in the last month - a trend that continues so I am not too concerned. But, something to consider: Many people play different matches for different reasons. Some matches are social - there are four people I've played at least 40 games with --- three generally rated about 100 lower than me, one generally about 100 higher. We chat, we try out different openings, we don't consider each other prey. Some matches are training - I play people at ~1100, and we talk about moves and strategy. And sometimes you go hunting. Those who choose opponents who are consistently below them when hunting are doing this for very different reasons than those who choose opponents consistently even or above them. If we knew the OAR of prey, then we know something about the player - but so many factors go into choosing our opponents that honestly I think the number has less information in it than we would like to infer.
DaPharaoh wrote:
I disagree, I started playing chess a year and a half ago and my rating was around 1000. of course, it wasn't easy for me to get to where I am today which is 1974. I had to play people of many different ratings so my averege is 1500.if I ever do play a lower rated opponent right now it would be a friend I met when I was lower rated or a tournament I'm in, or for tutoring. you will see many games called "practice", "mentoring" etc., but look at my games right now you will see me playing many high rated oponents.
I prefer playing stronger players but I accept all challenges, rating doesnt matter
You have a point. My rating is 2000 and my average rated opponent is 1855, but that is largely because when I started playing on chess.com I was so excited accepted as many challenges as possible! lol. And we all know that the higher rated you get, then you see more challenging "open seeks." So I had to play only higher rated opponents for a while to get my average to a respectible level because I do understand where Mark is coming from.
my average opponent is in the 1550's, yet i'm in the 1700ds. I think it's just cause i recently shot up the charts. it's a likely explanation for many opponents.