I challenge this site re: Glicko

GMproposedsolutions

Mr moderator, what do you call this?

The flaw is in your expectations, or in your understanding of how the Glicko rating system works.



Do you call this a fair statement? if so, why? do you want to make the same assumption? I am demonstrating an obvious flaw in the glicko system and for someone to tell me the flaw is with me, well, does that not count as an insult to you? 

GMproposedsolutions

I intend on working with the gamma distribution and devising a way to deal with rating changes. Even if chess.com doesn't want a robust system, some other entity that wants a robust system would...i know it will be a tough road while lacking a PhD degree. We have the highly erroneous PEG ratio as P/(E*G*100) for stock prices and my robust ratio of P/(12*E*(1+G)^2) is tough for relevant entities to adopt. I am use to this sort of thing. 

GMproposedsolutions

My post:

LOL, another cheap shot. RD right before the recently played games I have seen are essentially the same. Why obfuscate the issue? Is there a point to it? 





I do not even see the post I was replying to. I suppose, without an automated function employed by chess.com to show if we are replying to someone specifically, we have to write their name and maybe their entire post in the event the post gets removed. 

FideiDefensor

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

david

The moderators care more about who is perpetuating an argument than who may or may not have started it. I do agree, though, that I should extend my warning to all participants in this thread: stop with the personal insults, folks.

As to the point of your original post, Chess.com is always looking to improve things, but I don't see how the current method is sufficiently flawed to justify the time and expense of moving to another method - it can happen, as Chess.com's introduction of the CAPS score to complement the rating shows, but I think you'd need to demonstrate its advantages over the existing system to those who actually make those decisions, rather than in the public forums. @roland is a key staff member involved in the mathematics of fair play, so he'd at least be able to follow your argument - try dropping him a PM.

Cheers,

David, moderator