Rating for how you have been playing
Sort:
Zardorian
Nov 12, 2018
0
#1
As I understand it there are computer systems that can determine what level you should be, based on how you are playing, and how you played the last couple of games. So, there should be a rating based on that. One’s current rating is not necessarily the best benchmark for how you are playing. Example, if you just finished playing someone who is brand new to this site and their rating is still pretty low, but they are actually a 2000 level player, your rating could drop hundred points. But that doesn’t mean you actually play at that lower level; you know what I mean?
chesstenor2018 wrote:
As I understand it there are computer systems that can determine what level you should be, based on how you are playing, and how you played the last couple of games. So, there should be a rating based on that. One’s current rating is not necessarily the best benchmark for how you are playing. Example, if you just finished playing someone who is brand new to this site and their rating is still pretty low, but they are actually a 2000 level player, your rating could drop hundred points. But that doesn’t mean you actually play at that lower level; you know what I mean?
The Glicko system used here does take into account how frequently you have been playing. You have played almost 9000 blitz games but have only played 1 game in the last two months. Therefore, your 1437 rating is not as accurate as when you were playing every day.
The Glicko RD (ratings deviation) on your rating is up to 38, meaning that your rating is still considered most likely to exist in a plus minus range of 38 points above and below your current rating.
Your rating will not adjust by 100 points in 1 game if you play.
The new player you cited might have an RD of 200. His rating might move 100 points after a game. Yours won't.
You didn't name the other systems you have heard about so I cannot comment on them, except to say that such systems sound like your moves would be judged against computer recommendations like the CAPS system introduced here two years ago with a lot of fanfare.
It wasn't well received because the scores from one game to the next would fluctuate wildly. Perhaps it will improve with further refinement.