|
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
Food for thought. Some here are using chess computer to make sure they are making the best move. Of course if you loose to that, your score is lowered. So... Just food for thought as I said.
|
|
|
Jung Joe, If a player consistently uses a computer his rating is really his computer aided rating and that does not cause any rating flucctuation problems. A problem occurs when one uses computers sporadically.
The same problem occurs when one constrains oneself sporadically. I have had months that I used chess base on every move. When I dont use chess base my rating is about 100 points lower.
Miguel,
The term broken has been misused. I think a more accurate term would have been flawed. Lorfman is at the very least a worthy opponent for Bergmen. Many think that Lorfman is better.
I think we need correlational stats.
|
|
|
Actually, I just had a better idea. A much better one.
I have played and won against much higher rated players and lost against much lower rated ones. Good fun! But still...
I have noted that I play more carefully and conservatively when I see a higher rating for my opponent, giving him a better chance to win while likely being slightly stronger already.
Against much lower rated players I tend to overestimate my own ability and am sometimes overconfident or careless, which may then cost me the game and an s-load of rating points to boot.
So what if we just ditch the whole internal rating system on QA? From the open player stats, we can see the amount of wins versus losses of our opponent if we really want to size him/her up. But without some four-digit figure* to hang onto somebody we're playing, all that is left to us is to do the best we can without being either a bit intimidated or a bit careless.
Why not replace the rating with a win/lose/draw statistic?!?
This will still be satisfactory to those who base their glory on numerically expressed statistical data...
...and for those who do not, they will play at their best, making the site more satisfying for all members.
Cordially, and please feed back!, F.
*(...hopefully!)
|
|
|
Yes, I'm sure that many players play this way. I try to play every board at the same speed (fast!) and I think I'm reasonably consistent. However, with players rated well above mine (say 300+), I do slow down just a bit so as to not look quite so foolish. Taking only a few seconds longer allows me to avoid my typical blunders (I still lose of course).
As for opponent's ratings, choosing not to display it would be better as a personal option. That could be very easy to implement. I'm not sure how useful win, loss and draw numbers are apart from seeing extreme cases (e.g. very few or no losses) but it is certainly worthy of an additional option request. It is always fun to take down an undefeated player and I have missed that fact early on in some games. 
|
|
|
rok66: I think 2100 elo points on queenalice correspond to about 1900 points ELO FIDE.
|
| Previous 1 2 3 Next |
|
|
|
