| From | Message |
amateurke
11/23/2008
02:54:23
[ report abuse ] |
 Subject: Rating graph update
Message:
Nice update on the rating graphs !!!
The grey line that shows the average opponents rating is super!!! :D
Thank you GK!
Big improvement!!
|
heinzkat
11/23/2008
06:06:19
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
Yes, compliments for the recent small aesthetic changes.
|
levellerlevvie
11/23/2008
07:31:13
[ report abuse ] | I wonder which average it is ...
Message:
I don't think it can be the average of your opponents of ALL you games ...
But then the question raises about the timeframe that is used. Is it the average of 1 year, 90 days, last 100 games, something else?
I wonder
|
chessnovice
11/23/2008
08:21:01
[ report abuse ] | ...
Message:
Looking at my own rating graph, it appears that the timeframe being used is the past 90 days. It does leave for some interesting leaps and falls if a person is relatively inactive.
|
markb56
11/23/2008
11:28:07
[ report abuse ] | Soft ratings
Message:
This is a step in the right direction towards exposing how "soft" a player's rating is (a hard rating in my opinion is where a player's rating equals her opponent's). One of my opponents had a rating of 2100 while her average opponent rating was a mere 1600. She also had a win-streak of 149 games which is quite impressive no matter how strong her opponents, but the imbalance is beginning to catch up to her.
Another statistic that probably can't be shown is the number of active games. My opponent with the "soft" rating is playing between 40 to 50 games at a time, while I am mulling over a paltry 4 games -- if she gets a draw in our game that will be an achievement for her.
In other words, my rating of 1865 is "soft" if I were to start playing a large number of games -- lately I've preferred quality over quantity.
|
levellerlevvie
11/23/2008
23:58:17
[ report abuse ] | 90 days seems a bit small
Message:
Like chessnovice said ... some players play like 2-3 games in 90 days which is not enough to have a good quality average.
Maybe they should increase it to a combination like the average of the past 20 games or 90 days if you have played more then 20 games in 90 days.
|
kansaspatzer
11/24/2008
14:51:59
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
I like that idea, levellerlevvie.
|
amateurke
11/24/2008
14:54:15
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
"some players play like 2-3 games in 90 days which is not enough to have a good quality
average."
An average is an average, no?
If taken from 3 games, or from 30 games. Still an average.
|
chessnovice
11/25/2008
01:59:25
[ report abuse ] | amateurke
Message:
An average is an average, but any good statistician knows that a larger population generates a more accurate result.
|
levellerlevvie
11/25/2008
06:41:59
[ report abuse ] | Amateurke
Message:
Yes sure .... an average is an average ... and a car is a car ... or not?
It's like chessnovice said ... An average is a statistic feature and therefor you must make sure that your population is big enough at any point.
Can you imagine that they would base the selection of the USA-president a few weeks ago on the votes of 10 randomly picked persons? If you can then I must agree that an average is an average :p
|
amateurke
11/26/2008
16:24:28
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
If you want a statistically better average, just play more games!
What more can u ask of an average?!? You want it to give you an average of 30 games if you
only played 3 !?
btw: good idea about the votes!!
|
levellerlevvie
11/27/2008
16:02:47
[ report abuse ] | amateurke
Message:
With this last post, You have just proven yourself not to be taken seriously about this subject ... discussion is closed about the average!
|
amateurke
11/27/2008
16:11:53
[ report abuse ] | that grey line
Message:
Yes, it was a silly discussion anyway. The average graph is a very cool feature and who cares if
the average is accurate or very accurate? The only parameter that can make it more accurate is
yourself! Just play more games and you'll have a more accurate average.
But as i said: who cares anyway?
I like that grey line :)
|
gt2win
11/28/2008
14:17:43
[ report abuse ] | nice idea
Message:
But it has a flaw; now there's 2 lines on the rating graph it means the graphs
y axis probably has to cover a larger range of rating scores to accomodate both lines, so it's much harder to see the ups and downs for each line! I'm not sure i've explained that too well, if someone can do a better job please do it!
Perhpas GK should give the option of seeing either line separately (if we want.) That would solve the problem mentioned above.
It would also be nice if you could plot other players rating (or average opponents rating) lines on your graph along with your own! A cool way to compare your past ratings to theirs!
|
chessnovice
11/28/2008
16:29:15
[ report abuse ] | gt2win
Message:
Best solution to that is just clicking on the ratings graph, since it gives you a nice version of the big picture.
|
heinzkat
11/29/2008
08:59:00
[ report abuse ] | GT2
Message:
Good point. The small rating graph included in one's profile is less clear now.
|
levellerlevvie
12/17/2008
01:54:46
[ report abuse ] | Making the scale of the rating graph configurable?
Message:
That way each player can choose between which ratings you want to see lines.
For myself for eg I would like to see everything between 1500 and 1700 because I think my real rating is somewhere between those 2 limits. Everything below is only because I had too many timeouts in that period.
It would solve the problem of having limits too far apart with the result of the grapgh being unclear.
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|
Please log in to your account to play chess online!