|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > June 2005 > Chess Ratings ala Baseball?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Chess Ratings ala Baseball?
|
|
|
|
OK,
Before this idea is dismissed offhand, please think about it first.
In baseball you have a ifetime batting average and a current bating
average. From one year to the next, a player may have a better average.
Over a career an entirely different result might appear.
What is there were "life-time" chess ratings as well as annual ratings?
Of course, I am thinking of a highly organized and well compensated
group of players here as well. Just an idea for thoughtful serious
discussion.
Rob
| |
|
|
Mike Nolan wrote:
quote:
> "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> writes:
>
>
> I don't know how to compute a lifetime rating, do you?
> --
> Mike Nolan
Mike,
The actual math involved, no; I don't know how to do it. But isnt what
someone has right now as a rating exactly that,a lifetime rating? What
would be needed to be decided upon then is an annual rating for play.
Perhaps everyone starts the first tournament with same rating(whatever
that might be) and as they play over the course of a year their annual
rating is caculated. Of course those same match scores would be used
for the lifetime scores as well.
It may not work. It might make the game a bit more exciting though.
Rob
| |
| Mike Nolan 2005-06-13, 8:32 pm |
| "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> writes:
quote:
>What is there were "life-time" chess ratings as well as annual ratings?
>Of course, I am thinking of a highly organized and well compensated
>group of players here as well. Just an idea for thoughtful serious
>discussion.
I don't know how to compute a lifetime rating, do you?
--
Mike Nolan
| |
| George John 2005-06-13, 8:32 pm |
|
Rob wrote:
quote:
> Does the current system lower a
> players rating for inactivity?
No, it does not. Furthermore, the most current, official rating never
"expires". IOW, "once rated, always rated".
Best regards,
George John
| |
|
|
| Ed Seedhouse 2005-06-13, 8:32 pm |
| On 13 Jun 2005 11:30:50 -0700, "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> wrote:
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>The actual math involved, no; I don't know how to do it. But isnt what
>someone has right now as a rating exactly that,a lifetime rating?
No it isn't. It is a kind of moving average where recent games are
rated much more heavily than older ones, and where old enough games
basically have no effect.
The present system is designed to predict future results based on past
results. A rating based on all one's games, though dead easy to
produce, would not do that since what predicts future results is present
strength.
A "lifetime" rating would have little value in predicting future
results.
We do have a system of life time titles, but no one uses the player's
title to predict the outcome of a particular game except in the very
roughest way.
A rating is designed to produce a probabilistic prediction to a faily
high level of accuracy. Lifetime ratings and titles aren't.
Ed Seedhouse,
Victoria, B.C.
| |
|
|
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
quote:
> On 13 Jun 2005 11:30:50 -0700, "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> No it isn't. It is a kind of moving average where recent games are
> rated much more heavily than older ones, and where old enough games
> basically have no effect.
>
> The present system is designed to predict future results based on past
> results. A rating based on all one's games, though dead easy to
> produce, would not do that since what predicts future results is present
> strength.
>
> A "lifetime" rating would have little value in predicting future
> results.
>
> We do have a system of life time titles, but no one uses the player's
> title to predict the outcome of a particular game except in the very
> roughest way.
>
> A rating is designed to produce a probabilistic prediction to a faily
> high level of accuracy. Lifetime ratings and titles aren't.
>
>
> Ed Seedhouse,
> Victoria, B.C.
Ed,
Thank you very much. I was not aware that there was a weighting in
favor of more current games played. Does the current system lower a
players rating for inactivity?
Rob
| |
| Mike Nolan 2005-06-13, 8:32 pm |
| "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> writes:
quote:
>The actual math involved, no; I don't know how to do it. But isnt what
>someone has right now as a rating exactly that,a lifetime rating? What
>would be needed to be decided upon then is an annual rating for play.
>Perhaps everyone starts the first tournament with same rating(whatever
>that might be) and as they play over the course of a year their annual
>rating is caculated. Of course those same match scores would be used
>for the lifetime scores as well.
The mathematicians on the Ratings Committee would probably disagree, but
to me the current ratings system is closer to a weighted average than
anything else, with recent results being very heavily weighted over
previous results.
quote:
>It may not work. It might make the game a bit more exciting though.
I'm not sure how it could add any excitement. Please elaborate.
--
Mike Nolan
| |
|
|
Mike Nolan wrote:
quote:
> "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> writes:
>
>
> The mathematicians on the Ratings Committee would probably disagree, but
> to me the current ratings system is closer to a weighted average than
> anything else, with recent results being very heavily weighted over
> previous results.
>
>
> I'm not sure how it could add any excitement. Please elaborate.
> --
> Mike Nolan
Mike, I was just thinking that someone who had a high rating might not
be currently the strongest player. Yet because they were once strong,
they simply say they are the best because of their historical rating
and not their actual current match play. A situation like that opens up
the opportunity for one person to be the champion and someone else to
claim to be the champion because of an outdated rating. Not knowing
excatly how this stuff works or is caculated, I could be totally wrong
here.
Rob
| |
| Ed Seedhouse 2005-06-14, 3:32 am |
| On 13 Jun 2005 12:13:34 -0700, "Rob" <robmtchl@msn.com> wrote:
quote:
>Thank you very much. I was not aware that there was a weighting in
>favor of more current games played.
This is clear from an inspection of the rating formulas themselves.
quote:
> Does the current system lower a players rating for inactivity?
Most do not. If you take a look at Jeff Sonas' "Chessmetrics" site you
can find there pretty well anything you want to know about how rating
systems work. http://www.chessmetrics.com/
Ed Seedhouse,
Victoria, B.C.
|
| |
|
|