Today I had two players that was indicating ...
Quote: NaN% (0)
Avg Opponent: 0
Not sure why it did not give stats. One of the players had 18,110 blitz games.
And the other player had 1,740 blitz games.
That's real odd, because it shows the stats for all the players I played against today except those two.
Could this be because of more and more people watching third parties play online and looking up gameplay principles etc? I am relatively new to chess but I watch a ton of chess gameplay and explanations by much higher level players. I think more and more people are doing the same for any game, so maybe when they first join a rated system they are coming in with secondhand experience.
If it was that easy, everyone in the world would only be watching videos to become masters in all domains.
Another major factor (headwind) seemingly not addressed is high rated players doing speed runs (both official and unofficial....i.e., not subject to a rebate of lost points) and/or just going through the motions of (re)establishing a second/third/fourth account (for myriad reasons). Not to mention the increase in trolls who cheat. At say 1500, it's likely 15-20% of games are not anywhere close to being truly peer level play (assuming one sets a tight range for a game under the premise that's what they're actually going to get). That's not just a mere inconvenience, it's highly problematic. But it is what it is.
I don't get why people care about whether the numerical rating goes up or down, it's an entirely relative metric the only thing that matters is the rating difference between players it's not like elo is some absolute quantity it's completely artificial and iteratively defined through game performance. So what if there's a lot of new players who are underrated, over time ratings will shift and stabilise to reflect the new distribution and at least on lichess 1500 is the average rating by definition since that's everyone's starting provisional rating. A much more meaningful measure of skill is player percentile, that's what people should care about.
@ShogiButItSimplifies said in #65:
> I don't get why people care about whether the numerical rating goes up or down, it's an entirely relative metric the only thing that matters is the rating difference between players it's not like elo is some absolute quantity it's completely artificial and iteratively defined through game performance.
Fide gives titles based on specific numerical ratings. So that can't be done anymore once it is going up or down. Titles define who gets free entrances to tournaments and at some tournaments you can with a title even get extra conditions like starting fees, hotel, food,...
There are other reasons why a rating should not be relative like inactivity issues, activity-rate impact, drop out rates ... but I guess this is probably too complex to discuss here in public. I estimate 99% of the readers won't understand much of it anyway.
so sus
When it comes to a true rating system, we must never be permitted to pick our opponents. When we meet an opponent again we must alternate colors. So a common record should be maintained by Fide to know which color we must play against a given player. With the electronic age, this should be automated.
The "Erdős number" should be included in the pairings. If a rated player enters a tournament and has never played the opponent, then the first rating change should be treated as if it was a provisional rating. If two players have played each other before than the ratings should not be considered provisional.
The more formulas there are to pair the players properly, the better the pairings. Why wait to use a tie-breaking rule when it could be helpful to fairly pair chess players.
If FIDE wants to make a change, maybe build a FIDE dual rated semi-rapid system. Not everyone is equally good from both sides of a chessboard, or in speed chess vs slow chess. So a happy medium (semi-rapid) between the two time controls could be a good start to create a new rating system that builds a rating for the white pieces and a rating for the black pieces. The rating numbers could have an ID designator, like SR3000 meaning Semi-Rapid rated 3000.
freopen.org/The system began to break, even when the minimum rating was reduced from 2000 to 1800. Then this change did not seem significant and did not bring special inconvenience. But the greed of FIDE officials did not know the boundaries, and the minimum rating continued to be quickly reduced. As a result, the entire rating system, the fruit of the labor of several generations of chess players, is now completely spoiled. The ratings are quite strong, but middle-aged and/or non-progressive players are constantly declining, and much faster than the game class decreases. And the ratings of young and progressive do not have time to grow after the growth of their skill. The Covid-19 pandemic only aggravated the situation: the players progressed, but their ratings did not grow due to the lack of offline tournaments. And then everything will only be worse.
The fact is that the ELO system, which we know it, is designed to assess the strength of players with a difference of about 400 points. Well, maybe occasionally even 600: from 2000 to 2600. If someone wants to expand the rating range (for example, for greater calculation accuracy), then it must accordingly adjust the formulas on which the ratings are calculated. The rating range has expanded by half - respectively, the ranges of the difference in the ratings prescribed for calculating the rating points should double. This is the only working solution. And all sorts of one-time rating increase in fundamentally cannot fix anything. Alternative "rating" systems like Glicko, taking into account all sorts of extraneous factors, of course, should not be considered at all.
It is also possible that the starting rating should be somewhere in the middle of the range (as it was before: the starting 2200, the minimum 2000, and 2400 - the approximate maximum rating with which the 2000 player may meet in the tournament).
are you saying this for me you 2
