The short-term solution may be removal of some features, but the long-term solution is to get a few more servers. It will cost chess.com money, but if they keep removing features like this then members will be less inclined to purchase premium membership.
Agreed... I reaaaaally hope the average rating of win/loss/played actually does come back once they've found solutions. A player's rating is useless to me otherwise.
The short-term solution may be removal of some features, but the long-term solution is to get a few more servers.
it's not a matter or more servers. it's a matter of re-architecting the DB. we do need to add a column to the user table - it just hasn't been done.
rather than searching all players games ,howabout creating a couple of fields and have total query average opponent in games to date and number of games played ,lock that figure, when next game finishes use static figures and new game value to calculate current average
you could update static figures weekly or monthly , it would save time instead of searching all games in DB for this value it would only be looking at a month max.
it's not a matter of not knowing how to do it, it's a matter of finding the time :)
sorry , don't mean to teach you how to "suck eggs"
I miss my avg opponent figure
while you re at it ,do you think you can bring back avg moves per game as well?
Sort of thing that might be requested by people who build up their rating by beating lots of lower-rated opponents. Personally, I'd rather have the more accurate information, both for my opponents and for myself
You are wrong. The average opponent stat prevented people from building a high rating by playing much lower opponents. Now I can have a 1700 rating by playing 1400.
Abbreviations are unfortunately the shortcoming of both my wife and I, would it be possible to say in the opening post what a DB is and later on we can always refer back to the original post as to the meaning of the abb.
Here is a fairly long list of common abbs, I do this on purpose, and yet the DB abreviation does not show, perhaps you have a longer and more up to date list:
http://terri4now.blogspot.com/2009/10/long-list-of-abbreviations.html
Pardon me if you aren't actually asking but DB in this case means database.
Paul, the list you point to is very limited. Use http://www.abbreviations.com/ .
Sort of thing that might be requested by people who build up their rating by beating lots of lower-rated opponents. Personally, I'd rather have the more accurate information, both for my opponents and for myself
You are wrong. The average opponent stat prevented people from building a high rating by playing much lower opponents. Now I can have a 1700 rating by playing 1400.
Thought average opponent stat was just that - a stat. You could always (eventually) have a 1700 rating by playing 1400, but everyone could tell that's what you'd done. Without that stat, no-one knows whether you're a 1700 who's beaten lots of 1400 and 1500s, or who's regularly playing 1800 and 1900s. Or have I misunderstood?
Sort of thing that might be requested by people who build up their rating by beating lots of lower-rated opponents. Personally, I'd rather have the more accurate information, both for my opponents and for myself
You are wrong. The average opponent stat prevented people from building a high rating by playing much lower opponents. Now I can have a 1700 rating by playing 1400.
Thought average opponent stat was just that - a stat. You could always (eventually) have a 1700 rating by playing 1400, but everyone could tell that's what you'd done. Without that stat, no-one knows whether you're a 1700 who's beaten lots of 1400 and 1500s, or who's regularly playing 1800 and 1900s. Or have I misunderstood?
This is a misunderstanding. I think we perfectly agree. We both agree that we don't want people to have a high rating without playing high rated people. We want to see how a person earned his rating.
There is one stat that stands out above all others; Average Opponent Rating. Why not listen to the chess players and keep this stat while [temporary?] changes are being made. Remove all others if need be. The players make this site successful, not the whims of site management. Do the right thing, listen to players and throw us a bone.
whims? you think running Chess.com is done whimsically? interesting.
Although I would also like to see avg ratings return, I would suggest chess.com staff ignore comments by users that are obviously innapropriate in tone and disrespectful of the hard work that has been done to this fine site.
Cudos to the staff.
Whimsically run? Only chess.com can verify that. But in the mean time players will bark like dogs at annoyance. Throw us a bone. Bring back Avarage Opponent Rating. Were playing blind here.
The ground between users and providers it much like a chess board. On my part the word "Whim" was played just as any chess move of direct intent is submitted. As a modern pupil of E. Lasker I created an anoyance for a singular purpose. I apologize if it was too aggressively played. Play on chess.com, Whimsically or not ,"^),
Whimsically run? Only chess.com can verify that. But in the mean time players will bark like dogs at annoyance. Throw us a bone. Bring back Avarage Opponent Rating. Were playing blind here.
Three points:
1.) I like those stats too --- but playing blind? Who cares, you play your opponent, you do the best you can. Are you cherry-picking your matches?
2.) They said they are working on it - how about a little patience?
3.) You don't even have a little fancy icon by your name - what right do you have to bitch about services you don't pay for? STFU.
Whimsically run? Only chess.com can verify that. But in the mean time players will bark like dogs at annoyance. Throw us a bone. Bring back Avarage Opponent Rating. Were playing blind here.
Three points:
1.) I like those stats too --- but playing blind? Who cares, you play your opponent, you do the best you can. Are you cherry-picking your matches?
2.) They said they are working on it - how about a little patience?
3.) You don't even have a little fancy icon by your name - what right do you have to bitch about services you don't pay for? STFU.
Yikes! Yeah i cherry pick; i prefer players with average opponnets ratings greater than their current ratings. Perferably above 1600. But i'll blindly take you on if your not scared. Will you settle this over the chess board?
Whimsically run? Only chess.com can verify that. But in the mean time players will bark like dogs at annoyance. Throw us a bone. Bring back Avarage Opponent Rating. Were playing blind here.
Three points:
1.) I like those stats too --- but playing blind? Who cares, you play your opponent, you do the best you can. Are you cherry-picking your matches?
2.) They said they are working on it - how about a little patience?
3.) You don't even have a little fancy icon by your name - what right do you have to bitch about services you don't pay for? STFU.
Yikes! Yeah i cherry pick; i prefer players with average opponnets ratings greater than their current ratings. Perferably above 1600. But i'll blindly take you on if your not scared. Will you settle this over the chess board?
Of course, thanks for the challenge. just so you are not blind, my average win is 1456, average loss 1626, average draw 1554. See you on the tiles 
The short-term solution may be removal of some features, but the long-term solution is to get a few more servers.
it's not a matter or more servers. it's a matter of re-architecting the DB. we do need to add a column to the user table - it just hasn't been done.
rather than searching all players games ,howabout creating a couple of fields and have total query average opponent in games to date and number of games played ,lock that figure, when next game finishes use static figures and new game value to calculate current average
you could update static figures weekly or monthly , it would save time instead of searching all games in DB for this value it would only be looking at a month max.
it's not a matter of not knowing how to do it, it's a matter of finding the time :)