starting with white

I don't like the random win/lose feature either. Some days I just want to practice winning. I should be able to choose when I win or lose. Chess.com didn't consult me or my community. A bunch of BS!

Wow, I don't remember seeing so many people inflamed about one change in chess.com, although I didn't get an account here until it was already a very established site. I don't have a problem with only random seeks, but perhaps a good compromise would be to allow you to choose White only if you have played White in under 55% of your games.

haha :)

just a thought....

couldn't a win with white for a player that has played 95% of his games as white be awarded less points than a win with black, somewhat like gaining less points when you win against a lower-rated player?

i realize this creates further complications in the calculation or rating points, especially considering rating point differences between players , etc. but anyways, it's just a thought.

shiro, would you like to figure out the 'ratings' calculations?

The only facts is that you spent way too much time trying to analyse my play...and I'll repeat, 10 games with black is not a large enough sample to get a true gauge.  You would need hundreds of games to truly know.  You wasted your time. 

I almost never play live chess, and I certainly didn't notice the recent change until threads like this popped up.

I used to be like the complainers, I was only good at White.  With Black I seemed to play pretty bad.  So I always wanted to play as White.  But gradually, I decided that I should be playing both colors more evenly.  The result?

Record (correspondence)

as White: 24 wins, 18 losses

as Black: 25 wins, 24 losses, 2 draws (I didn't realized I played more as Black!)

It seems I'm still stronger with White, but I've certainly improved my play as Black by a lot.  Trying to play only as White means you're running away from the challenge of playing as Black, and to me, that is not what chess players should do.  You play to have fun, and also to learn from your mistakes or the tactics of your opponents.  Playing only as White or as Black means you're only playing half of the game of chess.

I would like to share my thoughts and experience with those who understand and offer constructive feedback. On May 15th, I played 17 games on "live chess" and won 6; 3 with Black and 3 with White. I lost 11 games, 6 with Black and 5 with White. Initially, I thought that my form has dipped drastically, and my rating has plummeted. Later, on looking back I found that on May 5th, I had managed 11 straight wins on White. On the same day, I played 15 games, winning 12 with White and lost 2 with Black and 1 with White. Then, I had second thoughts, as to whether I play better with White than Black.

Can someone help me out, to analyze, and to find out what was the cause behind there two contrasting results ???

With the introduction of the new format of "cannot choose", bricks and bouquets has been thrown at the Administrator. He recommended playing unrated games where you are allowed to choose either with Black or White.It is not in everyones' interest to play an unrated game. Firstly, you do not know the rating, so how can you gauge his level of play. If one player has 100 points difference to the other, he would be completely outclassed. The loser maybe demoralised, not knowing that it was not his time "to leave the mountain", thru' no fault of his.He may even blame himself for his inadequacy, and eventually quit playing Chess altogether.

In comparison, a rated game has incentive. A lower rated player will try his outmost best to beat his higher rated  rival so that he can add more points to his current rating.If he succeed, ( it has happened to me)this will be a morale booster and he will feel rejuvenated and more confident of his chess moves.

It is really frustrating when you lose a very closely fought game, and the winner do not offer a rematch.When I requested for one  the system cautioned that since I am playing, I cannot issue challenges. The game ended, no one was playing.

I have a salient point to suggest to the Adminstrator. Allot white pieces to the higher rated player, because if the lower rated player wants his rating to go up, he must work for it. Regardless of the match result, have the two players switch sides for the 2nd game. In this way, there is fair rotation as each player gets to play with White and Black. If both players have the same rating, also switch sides after the 1st game. This method is used at "POGO.COM".

A pianist needs to stroke the Black and White keys on his key board to achieve harmony and clarity of purpose. As  enthusiasts, we must learnt to adapt well to the black and white pieces on the chess board, so as to recognize the elements of winning tactical combinations , and also to  appreciate the finesse and artistry of Chess in order  to reach the level of proficiency required(depends on individuals' goals)

fhwee,   since you asked here, although this is not the topic of this thread, it could be of interest to others.

suggestion:  when you want to analyze your games, 10 or even 20 is too small a number to use to get a really valid resulting analysis.

   I used 50 games cause the OP in a thread whined that 10 isn't an adequate number to evaluate... and he suggested 50.

actually, 100 games would be a better number to use for analysis.  200 or 500 would give significant results but not account for skill improvements from outside study over the year or so that you took to play that many games....  (you see, other variables enter into the equation over time...  even learning from and during a game affects the next games' results.)

given all that, take a look at your opponent's ratings compared to your own rating - post game is readily available - with the glicko adjustment (here) for that game's result entered.

compare:  when you were higher rated, did you win more with white or black or about the same ?    e.g  100 games total.   60 games you won.    48 as white, 12 as black   in the white games you were higher rated 38 times....  (that would be expected)    BUT HOW MUCH HIGHER rated?  did you win many when more than 100 points rated above your opponent ?   create a percentage for each category - from the total wins, and from the total wins as higher rated.

then look at the ones with black, and compare to get percentage related to the number you win.  

do the same for the games you lost with white - and then with black.   now you can deal with comparing the results ....

I recommend looking for relation between numbers of wins over lower rateds affecting your overall results - numbers of 'significant wins' by lower rateds over you (more than 100 rating points delta would be significant), and try to evaluate your performance that way.

if you are only winning over those who are lower rated, and not winning over those who are significantly higher rated, then your rating is probably 'established' at the level your skill puts you at, and is - within a 200 point range above and below the median (for the last 100 games) an accurate indicator of your strength.

going a step further, look back at the previous 101st to 200th games and do the same analysis steps - then compare your median results - for those games to the most recent 100 games, and see if your median is rising, falling, or staying the same....

or you could just look at your rating 200 games ago and today, and ask: is it higher now?  if so, then I must be playing stronger moves, as I'm beating higher rated opponents in order to raise my rating.   of course, no comparison of wins as white, vs wins as black or evaluation is available from that type of 'rough indicator'.

I postulate that failing to objectively consider the impact of opponent's ratings when evaluating one's wins and losses, can significantly skew the conclusions one reaches - even leading to totally incorrect conclusions.

if you study endings and tactics, your rating will rise over time.

hmm. no, not really. it's not really my cup of tea.

but just because i don't want to and nobody else wants to, that shouldn't take away from the merits of having such formula because ultimately this could allow people to still select their colours and keep ratings fair.

in the greater scheme of things, though, i still agree that in real life otb people just don't have that option and banning colour selection altogether would keep things consistent with that. having said that, this website is not a real life otb tournament and there's also an education side to it. and i can appreciate the fact that some people could be taking a step-by-step approach to learning this great game by, for example, learning an opening at a time. anyways, my point is that i can imagine instances when people would want to select their colours to play a game and i can also see that some people could abuse this feature.

now, since i already took the time to write this much, i might as well throw in some calculation suggestions.

1. you could generate a parallel glicko formula to calculate ratings adjustments when the white/black distribution is not optimal. then run both glick results through a matrix and decide the final adjustment value. well, i'm just mentioning this idea, but i believe that implementing this would be too cumbersome for its own good because there are a several more variables you would need to keep track of.

2. just create a multiplier to be applied to the current glicko results. this multiplier could range from 0-1 and be based on a normal distribution.

now, i'm not really an expert in the topic and both suggestions above could be garbage. i'll just leave it up to someone to take them and run with them. or not.

To:-RetGuvvie98,

Thanks a bunch for your insight and positive feedback.I will certainly try your recommended method to sort it out.Best regards.

well, conducting studies of stats is one thing, but simply spending 30 minutes daily studying tactics one day, and endgames the next, will likely help improve your game results faster than analysis of 'what you did yesterday'.....   I know it helps mine more - lots more than analyzing someone else's stats... for sure.    at my level, here, or uscf, the ONLY way to improve is study of tactics and endings, and learn to play one opening at a time, not trying multiple ones and confusing myself on which one and which principles are applying...   and likely that applies to most whose ratings are below 2000.  (give or take, any particular person could have an aptitude negating that generalized conclusion).

hello theundecider,

Sorry to disappoint you, but I believe I did point out that the sample is a little small to get a valid result from.

   YOU are the one who alleged (correctly, I would add) that analysis based on only ten games (the last ten games) wasn't valid, that one would have to look at the last 50 games.  Accordingly, I looked at your last 50 games.   If that number isn't valid, again, it was your number.   had you played alternate color each time, you would have had roughly 25 white and 25 black.  that you did not, merely proves Erik's validity in forcing a change to the way folks are allowed to pair for games - play unrated if you want all white.

     And I did not try to pass it off as valid, merely that it seems to refute your allegation that you did better with white - when in fact, it appears that you do better when you are higher rated than your opponents (as one would expect to happen....)

the above quoted by you was directed to fhwee, related to his question about how to analyze his own games, not your question nor your allegation.

Bottom line remains the same though:  for the majority of players rated below roughly 2000, studying tactics and endings will yield the fastest rise in rating, per hour invested.

   having been teaching kids chess for over 35 years, I have seen significant results from dedicated study of just 30 minutes daily.

    But you are free to play white every game if you wish, for as long as you wish, just so you realize Erik changed that so that your opponents get an equal number of black and white.

regards,

I like to be able to choose my colour. I agree I was being lazy by playing White almost always and maybe playing black will improve my game, but I wish chess.com would reverse this and allow me to choose again.

As Black I am always harried and can't improve my position - I am always defending and I find this stressful! Others clearly enjoy it and I never had to wait long for a challenger. Please give control back to me.

You still can choose.  Play an unrated game or challenge a friend.