01 Feb 09
rhp should have a feature that not only shows your average rating but also the the average rating of your opponents. because some people could be rated like 1700 but only play players under 1300 and others could be rated like 1200 and only play players above 1600. it would be a cool feature if rhp did supply it!
do you think it will be doable?
02 Feb 09
Originally posted by ArrakThe average says nothing. The rating graph says more.
rhp should have a feature that not only shows your average rating but also the the average rating of your opponents. because some people could be rated like 1700 but only play players under 1300 and others could be rated like 1200 and only play players above 1600. it would be a cool feature if rhp did supply it!
do you think it will be doable?
Any player with hundreds of timeouts has a sudden drop in his rating. But he still has the skill of his former self, and given time he regains his lost points. Average here is not worth much.
What you really want is a true measure of a players skill. This would be nice. But I have no idea what this measure could be based upon.
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
02 Feb 09
Originally posted by padgerNot sure it has anything at all to do with rating floors. There are other threads for that.
This all refers to rating floors
Which sets off a lot of discussion
The T E R should be set to 365 days instead of the current 100 to discourage sand bagging
It would be interesting to know the average rating of someone's opponents, as this might encourage people to try to play similarly rated players. That said, it is your choice who you play, so why should it matter to anyone else?
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
02 Feb 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasI'd go for the average of the last 100 days, but it is open to debate. I'd include all rated in that time.
What is average, by the way?
Is it the average for all games from beginning of time, or is it the last 100 days, or last 100 games, does it include timeouts, or ordinary games only, or what is it?
Please define...
Other suggestions might be interesting.
02 Feb 09
Originally posted by gezzaIt's done on other CC sites and gives you some idea whether a player's rating is inflated by playing weak opposition.
Not sure it has anything at all to do with rating floors. There are other threads for that.
It would be interesting to know the average rating of someone's opponents, as this might encourage people to try to play similarly rated players. That said, it is your choice who you play, so why should it matter to anyone else?
03 Feb 09
Originally posted by no1marauderanybody on the rhp administration who has the power to do this?
It's done on other CC sites and gives you some idea whether a player's rating is inflated by playing weak opposition.
i think it would be a great feature! id say make it the average rating for all rated games since you joined rhp. and if you want add a average of the last 100 days but that might get a bit complicated.
05 Feb 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasI don't see what is wrong with the rating.
The average says nothing. The rating graph says more.
Any player with hundreds of timeouts has a sudden drop in his rating. But he still has the skill of his former self, and given time he regains his lost points. Average here is not worth much.
What you really want is a true measure of a players skill. This would be nice. But I have no idea what this measure could be based upon.
If I play only play players 200 points below me, I have a 75% chance of winning each game and get 8 points for a win, but lose 24 points for a loss.
I win 3 out of 4 games, but my average does not change over the long haul. If I win more than 3 out of 4 games, then perhaps I am better than 200 points higher than my opponents, and my rating should rightfully go up. If I win less than 3 out of 4 games, my rating should go down.
Are there studies that show a player can inflate his theoretical true rating by playing more weak opponents?
05 Feb 09
Originally posted by techsouthThe rating should mirror the true skill. It isn't. An average even more less.
I don't see what is wrong with the rating.
If I play only play players 200 points below me, I have a 75% chance of winning each game and get 8 points for a win, but lose 24 points for a loss.
I win 3 out of 4 games, but my average does not change over the long haul. If I win more than 3 out of 4 games, then perhaps I am better than 200 points higher ...[text shortened]... dies that show a player can inflate his theoretical true rating by playing more weak opponents?
I can live with a rating with its flaws, because I can easily see at his rating graph and build an opinion about his skill. Much better than any average can show.
Let's say that someone let all his hundred of games go to time out. How does a single average value show that? When he's up again to his true level of rating, what does the average say?
If you rely on the average, and average only, then you often get misinformed. But the graph says it all.
But I don't mind if Russ et al show us a rating, but I'm not interested because I cannot trust it. I rather glance at the graph. It gives more information.