Ratings

For discussion pertaining to Chess, Net-Chess, or general interests.
Post Reply
echamberlain
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:00 pm
Location: Weaverville NC USA
Contact:

Ratings

Post by echamberlain » Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:10 pm

I believe I have read in another thread that your rating can go down when you defeat a player if that player is rated sufficiently below you. I have just had it happen to me, and I really dislike that feature. However, I particularly think it is ridiculous when it happens due to changes in our ratings after the game begins. In this case, my opponent's rating dropped because he or she timed out a bunch of games. I am all in favor of decreasing the ratings of players who time out games. But don't punish me because my opponent times out.

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:36 pm

#1. Don't worry about your rating.

#2. Your rating is only based on 11 games, so don't even look at it.

#3. It's not punishment, it's just math.

echamberlain
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:00 pm
Location: Weaverville NC USA
Contact:

Reply to G Miller

Post by echamberlain » Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:27 pm

1. I suspect that almost every player here cares about rating and even thinks more or less highly of other players based on their ratings. Note that players are allowed to make open challenges only to certain people based on their ratings. If I remember correctly, that's the only basis on which I can limit who I am challenging without specifying only one person as the object of the challenge. Ratings are therefore about pecking order. People do care about them. You might as well tell models not to obsess over their bodies.

2. My rating is based on eleven games over which I have sweated blood even though I enjoyed every minute.

3. Because of these social factors, a satisfactory rating system would have the following characteristics despite all statistical considerations:

A. The impact of a game on my rating should change during a game only in ways favorable to my goal of having as high a rating as possible.

B. When I win a game, my rating should increase. Thus if a player rated 30,000 (I am deliberately using a ridiculously high figure.) defeats a player with the lowest possible rating, the winner should now be rated 30,002. If there is to be a limit on how high you can push your rating by bunny bashing, the way to do it is to require a certain percentage of one's rated games to be with people who begin the games with ratings at least not very far below one's own.

C. When I draw a higher rated player, my rating should go up.

To put this post in one sentence, because of psychological and social factors, the correct rating system is NOT merely a question of statitstics.

knightmare
Uranium
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 1999 10:56 pm

Post by knightmare » Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:21 pm

Yeah That's Right I agree completely! And while we're at it lets make it so only really nice guys get high ratings and SOB's ratings go in the dumpster. After all statistics should have nothing to do with it!! The only thing that matters is that when the game is over I should feel good. What does probability and statistics have to do with chess ratings anyway? Do you realize the long term emotional scars your causing when my rating goes down?? That's it! I'm calling my lawyer! !^%$@(#&!
:roll:

janlagrain
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 11:24 am

Post by janlagrain » Wed Jan 12, 2005 3:36 am

:) although my collegues are exagerating a little bit, the point is made: If you play 11 games against 2050 and you win 10 out of eleven, it isn't logical at all that you receive 2050, you should receive your TPR (average of opponents ànd result is counted in), then you would get 2350 or even more.
So it is NOT mathematically sound, whatever is told about it. There isn't a single site or real country who use this system.

By the way; Rating is handy because you can enter more events then!!! so it's also out of practical needs that tthe ratingsystem should be more precise. I would hate it to receive only 2000 when I got results of a 2300 and then again have to play 10 or more games to get the rating I deserve.

But how does that 11-game system work? You get your first provisional rating after 11 games and that goes on till 20 (average of opponents), when the normal system starts? And does the results of the first 20 games count for nothing?

keithstuart
Uranium
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 1999 3:52 am
Location: NW England
Contact:

Post by keithstuart » Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:16 am

Due to the small number of games played it takes 20 games to get a better view of your rating. After 20 games your rating doesn't jump around alot at all.

On the other point of any win giving you more points i disagree, if you were playing someone rated well below you you should not expect to gain points as you would not be expected to do anything but win easily.

EG If Kasparov played a 9 year old who'd just started playing you'd expect Kasaprov to win very quickly and not to gain any points. This also brings me to one of my dislikes. If they same 9 year old lasted a long time before losing allthough the end result is the same the fact that he lasted a long time should really be allowed for.


Just a quick question when the big guns play tournaments isn't their rating changes worked out only after all the games are finished and also based on tournament performance not indivdual games? Is there anyway this can be implemented here or not? It would also solve the problem of peoples ratings changing during games too as it would be the tournament start rating that was used like IECG does

janlagrain
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 11:24 am

Post by janlagrain » Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:25 am

On the other point of any win giving you more points i disagree, if you were playing someone rated well below you you should not expect to gain points as you would not be expected to do anything but win easily.

EG If Kasparov played a 9 year old who'd just started playing you'd expect Kasaprov to win very quickly and not to gain any points. This also brings me to one of my dislikes. If they same 9 year old lasted a long time before losing allthough the end result is the same the fact that he lasted a long time should really be allowed for.
Euhm, i totally disagree with this, because actually you are denying all rating logics:
1) rating consists of the following: -If you win, you gain points, but this differs of your opponent: you can't lose points against someone who is rated 400 points higher than you are (or maybe 1 or 2 points). Kasparov will not gain any point if he wins against somebody with 2000 rating, nothing. So this is calculated in the normal system, thus your criticism isn't correct on that point.
2) Here it seems forgotten that you must see that the discussion is not on the ratingsystem here in the whole, but only in the very beginning. You don't have rating then, so you have to get a rating after some games and that rating should be more or less the same as your performance value example: kasparov has no rating and starts to play: he plays 20 games against an average of 2100. He off course wins them all. But Kasparov will only get 2100 rating after those 20 games, and thàt is the subject of this discussion. Normal ratings work with performances in the start, and on net-chess (a wonderful site by the way) one doesn't do this for one or another reason.
3) The last point I agree with you, but I think there isn't any good solution for that problem (in contrary there is in the above problems)
4) On the tournaments you are again correct, but I think the ratings here are calculated automatically and I don't know whether that is possible in your good proposal.

but hey, it's only rating on an internetpage, we will survive it, won't we :)

echamberlain
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:00 pm
Location: Weaverville NC USA
Contact:

Enjoying this Thread

Post by echamberlain » Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:18 pm

Thanks to all who have posted or will post in this thread, whether you agree with me or not. I particularly appreciate the comment that what we're talking about is only a rating on a web page. We will indeed all survive. :D

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:57 pm

Just a note on the above example. If someone played 20 games with an average opponent's rating of 2100 and won all of them he would receive a rating of 2500. It'd be 1700 if he lost them all, if he won half it would be 2100, win more than half and it would be between 2100 and 2500, etc.

echamberlain
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:00 pm
Location: Weaverville NC USA
Contact:

Thank You for the Explanation

Post by echamberlain » Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:12 pm

That was a good explanation Greg. Thank you. I persist in my belief that changes in my opponent's rating that occur while my game with him is going on should not be allowed to hurt my rating. I should be able to calculate before I begin the game the worst case changes in my rating that would result from winning, losing, and drawing.

I'm also not sure about the validity of giving someone an extablished rating when they have not won some games against players with established ratings. On the other hand, that criticism could be leveled against every rating system I have looked at.

By the way, I appreciate all your efforts that give us this website.

janlagrain
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 11:24 am

Post by janlagrain » Wed Jan 12, 2005 3:28 pm

gmiller wrote:Just a note on the above example. If someone played 20 games with an average opponent's rating of 2100 and won all of them he would receive a rating of 2500. It'd be 1700 if he lost them all, if he won half it would be 2100, win more than half and it would be between 2100 and 2500, etc.
oh, but if this is true, I am taking back every word I said :)
thx!

and indeed, the net-chesssystem is quite great, thnx for that also :)

cornstalk
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 1999 1:42 pm

ratings here totally suck

Post by cornstalk » Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:40 pm

The ratings here totally suck, but not because defeating a lower-rated opponent (losing to higher-rated opponent) can make your rating fall (rise) when you are provisional. That can happen in USCF too.

I don't fully understand what Greg is doing here, but after I left the site in, oh, the year 2000, ratings skyrocketed. Before 2400 was roughly the top rating of anyone here; now it's, what, 2950? That's ridiculous. When I started playing here again my rating was in the high 2300's, now four months later (or so) it's in the high 2400's. I won all my games, it's just that it takes forever for your rating to change here.

What seems to happen is that the way provisional ratings are calculated is letting some players get outlandish ratings.

The problem for me is that although I am a very strong cc player, I can never get a game from anybody above 2500 (just as I myself don't offer matches to players rated 400 points below me). So it will be another couple of years, at this rate, before I can have a rating that reflects my strength relative to the people on the top of the ladder.

In any other form of chess, an underrated player can register in a strong section, do well, and see his rating rise commensurately. You can't do that here.

"Don't pay attention to your rating" is hardly a constructive response, particularly from Greg. I can tear the heads off players here who are rated 200-300 points above me, so why shouldn't I have a rating reflective of that? I assume that there are others who are similarly affected.

Also I think that ratings here should be more or less commensurate with ratings in real cc. That is not now the case.

If somebody highly rated comes back and says, "Quit complaining and play chess," he had better give me a match.

echamberlain
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:00 pm
Location: Weaverville NC USA
Contact:

Question and Comment

Post by echamberlain » Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:31 pm

Cornstalk has a good point when he points out that the minor complaint with which I began this thread can happen in USCF Chess too.

I am hearing Cornstalk say that it takes more games to raise your rating 100 points than it does under the USCF rating system. I would like to know whether that's true. Maybe 60 Minutes needs to hire Geraldo to come do bit of undercover investigation....... :D

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Thu Jan 13, 2005 11:26 pm

Here I use the Elo rating system which is the same as pretty much everywhere else. Some places modify it slightly, but the bulk of the system remains the same.

It takes a lot longer for your rating to change in CC because you typically play fewer games in the same amount of time.

Ratings here aren't inflated accross the board, the last time I computed the average of all of the players on the site the average rating was about 300. This is due to the fact that a lot of people come to the site, start a few games, descide they don't want to play here and resign or time out in all of their games. The net effect is that the players to play regularly here get inflated ratings. That'll always be a problem with free sites that are easy to use.

It's not a perfect system, but it's the best we've got.

davidswhite
Uranium
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: ratings here totally suck

Post by davidswhite » Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:53 am

cornstalk wrote:The ratings here totally suck, but not because defeating a lower-rated opponent (losing to higher-rated opponent) can make your rating fall (rise) when you are provisional. That can happen in USCF too.

I don't fully understand what Greg is doing here, but after I left the site in, oh, the year 2000, ratings skyrocketed. Before 2400 was roughly the top rating of anyone here; now it's, what, 2950? That's ridiculous. When I started playing here again my rating was in the high 2300's, now four months later (or so) it's in the high 2400's. I won all my games, it's just that it takes forever for your rating to change here.

What seems to happen is that the way provisional ratings are calculated is letting some players get outlandish ratings.

The problem for me is that although I am a very strong cc player, I can never get a game from anybody above 2500 (just as I myself don't offer matches to players rated 400 points below me). So it will be another couple of years, at this rate, before I can have a rating that reflects my strength relative to the people on the top of the ladder.

In any other form of chess, an underrated player can register in a strong section, do well, and see his rating rise commensurately. You can't do that here.

"Don't pay attention to your rating" is hardly a constructive response, particularly from Greg. I can tear the heads off players here who are rated 200-300 points above me, so why shouldn't I have a rating reflective of that? I assume that there are others who are similarly affected.

Also I think that ratings here should be more or less commensurate with ratings in real cc. That is not now the case.

If somebody highly rated comes back and says, "Quit complaining and play chess," he had better give me a match.
Mark,I'll be your huckleberry.
Losing some of my seriously inflated rating to you will be my pleasure.
Some 3 plus yrs. ago I joined a Max Lange thematic that you set up and
it was just for the privelege of playing you.Unfortunately for my purposes,
so many players joined that you had to break it into 2 groups and we
wound up divided.
I don't remember if we would have met in the 2nd round or not because
before it could begin,you allowed your unfinished games to time out since
you had left this site.That was in the beginning of 2002 and now I'm at
your disposal for a belated thrashing.
At any time since your return here I would have happily given you a match and suspect that quite a few players here with similarly high ratings
would have been equally agreeable...especially if they were even remotely familiar with your undeniably impressive credentials
Best regdrs,David

geebs
Uranium
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 4:34 pm

Post by geebs » Sat Jan 15, 2005 12:05 am

Concerning ratings at Slow chess I have 1 comment and 1 question:

(1) The rating system helps me measure my progress and gives me an idea of my opponents likely playing ability. All I need it to do.
The site is free, maintained by dedicated chess fanatics. No complaints at this end. Don't know what I would do without Slow Chess, it is the only site I play at. Thanks! :D

(2) My question is I am under the impression if an opponent times now out he or she is penalized for a loss but the winner's rating does not go up. My concern is if a player has a won game but the opponent times out it is potentially unfair to the winning player. Perhaps this can be modified to provide credit for an opponent of a timed out player after a certain # of moves (eg: 20) have been played? This would still eliminate crediting those 1-move time outs.

Graham (Geebs)

jpettit
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2001 11:55 am

Post by jpettit » Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:20 am

Not another discussion on the rating system! This topic seems to get raised every two-three months, and always with a debate!

Well, right about now, the Zapper usually comes out to remind us that chess is FUN, whearas arguing over a stupid number is decidedly NOT FUN.

Oh, there is an easy, but drastic, solution to the whole issue. If we stop comparing it to ELO or any other system, there would be no bases to calculate inflation. So, if every rating was multipled by a 100, we would get a number that means nothing to any other rating system. Call this really high number the 'Special Net-Chess Super Rating,' and what's there to complain about? :roll:

And if anyone doesn't agree with me, well, they better give me a match. :wink:


Farewell and fare well,
-- Jonathan

echamberlain
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:00 pm
Location: Weaverville NC USA
Contact:

Discussing Ratings

Post by echamberlain » Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:46 am

I don't see why discussing the rating system cannot be fun, but if anyone does not like doing so, they should at the very least not interfere with those of us who do. I have heard that there are even people who do not play chess seriously.

wulebgr
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:12 pm
Location: PNW USA
Contact:

Post by wulebgr » Sun Jan 16, 2005 9:35 am

gmiller wrote:Here I use the Elo rating system which is the same ... [snip]

Ratings here aren't inflated accross the board, the last time I computed the average of all of the players on the site the average rating was about 300. ... [snip] The net effect is that the players to play regularly here get inflated ratings. That'll always be a problem with free sites that are easy to use.
Greg is correct. Because he uses an Elo formula, the ratings here conform to an accepted standard. Ratings are like IQ--they are a relative measure of performance within a limited pool; they are not an objective standard.

Sometimes ratings are deflated relative to those in comparable pools, other times they are inflated. When Elo designed the system that bears his name, 1500 was planned as the median rating. However, in the USCF (the first organization to adopt Elo ratings), a 1500 rating today puts a player at the 65th percentile. Perhaps USCF ratings are deflated.

I'm currently playing at six sites that run the sort of correspondence chess found at net-chess, plus I play through IECC. I also play blitz and rapid (standard) at a half-dozen sites, including ICC, FICS, and playchess. My rating is highest here, but I've also played more here than any other correspondence sites. At one site where my rating seems low relative to my USCF rating, there are many very active players who are beginners, and there are very few, if any, players of expert (OTB) strength. So, there rating deflation takes hold. This deflation also takes hold at the Chessmaster 10 online site, where there is a tiny pool of active players, and many who try it for a few games. Most other sites have inflation as measured against a USCF or FIDE standard.

We could ask Greg to arbitrarily set 1500 as the median for active players--those who have finished five or more games in the past six months, for example. But we would be asking for a lot of work on his part, and I'm not certain it would change much. Another possibility would be to halve and quarter the rating change above certain levels, as FIDE does, but this would further punish cornstalk for his period of inactivity. We could recognize that many of us have inflated ratings, but that they remain useful as a relative measure.

I had two accounts here. I retired the account with the higher rating.
Wulebgr

“From a fish’s point of view, a wulebgr is a leech.”

gambitz
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 4:59 am

Post by gambitz » Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:05 pm

I am betting on davidswhite vs echamberlain. (I have My own rating system) ....any takers?

jjones
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 1999 4:37 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Post by jjones » Tue Jan 18, 2005 5:52 pm

Hey all!!

I know this is an open forum and there has been and will ALWAYS be a distinct difference of opinion between those of us for and agaisnt the rating system, over-inflated, under-inflated blah blah BLAH and BLAH!!
I have been on this site for over 5 years and I LOVE the SITE!! My rating is just a by-prouct of how well or not well I do while playing! As long as I have fun with my friends and make a decent showing for myself, Im HAPPY!
Greg does all he can for us on this sitem and it has improved more and more month by month...I dont think he needs or wants to have the constant rantings, fussing or complaints from those that expect perfection or him going through hoops to change a rating system!
It is as it is, let all PLAY, have some damn FUN and a good chat here and there!!
isnt that what any hobby, art or sport is about?!

I love the site and I will continue to play on it for as long as I think my Chess is worth playing..hopefully for another 5 years to come! I appreciate Greg for all he has done and think the site, overall. is as good as it is right now. I have made many good solid friendships with a few ppl here that I think willendure, and that, to me is a welcome bonus! Of course we are all entitled to our opinions and this is a Forum to express them but lets have FUN play a good game get to be friends and enjoy the game for ther sake of the game, not for a stupid # that does NOT mean a hill of chocolate covered grasshoppers to any other group of people., nor is it going to make you recognized in the Chess World as being an almighty Lord supreme of E-Mail Chess! ::waves Zap Stik around in a particularly threatening manner:: :x
I play any one and everyone with the intent of having a good time and enjoying myself, Rating be damned for the most part :)

Lets ALL try and enjoy it and take the site for what it is, a kick arse place to play and have fun and BLAH to the "rating" We all know how relative we play and our strengths and weaknesses, dont we?! Sure there might be some over inflation going on, but who does that hurt besides the one that has to play higher rated ppl to main tain that rating...as long as I am worried about me and making sure Im doing the best I can, I can care less about another chess player's rating ! ::stops pacing and ranting::

LETS HAVE FUN AND PLAY CHESS :)

Jeff aka "the Zapper" :twisted:

pe
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 5:08 pm

Post by pe » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:10 pm

Thanks, Jeff !

i was kinda gettin worried because your reaction didn't come :P
Well, right about now, the Zapper usually comes out to remind us that chess is FUN, whearas arguing over a stupid number is decidedly NOT FUN
and Jonathan :you have been proven right....


cheers, and have fun,

pe

ismgr
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2004 3:11 pm

all quiet on the front?

Post by ismgr » Mon Jan 31, 2005 7:27 pm

These posts on ratings are my favorites. When I don't have any moves to make, I head over here to read the latest diatribe. Don't let the thread die!

Here's my contribution:

There's the concept in many industries, notably music, of "paying your dues." Some have it easier than others. That's how it goes. Consider the "provisional" rating as "paying your dues" time. After that, each player has the right to take ratings as seriously (or not) as s/he wishes.

Post Reply