Average Opponent Rating

Sort:
Nytik

I have an issue with the Average Opponent Rating (AOR) stat on chess.com, one that has been bugging me for quite a while.

I have been on this site for over a year, and in that time have played 471 games. When I first joined, my rating was between 1200 and 1300. As such, I played a lot of games with other players in this range.

However, these were oh so long ago- they have very little impact on what my rating is today. If these games had never existed, my rating would be practically the same.

But, this is not shown in my AOR stat. These games continue to plague my page, and some players go so far as to say I am not a true 1800 player because my average opponent is 1500. This is simply not true. A quick calculation of my last ten rated chess games gives an AOR of 2016.

So, these games have no effect on what my rating is today. And yet, they are still part of my stats. What I suggest is simple- instead of an overall AOR, have a cut-off point... for example, AOR over the last 100 games. Any games prior to these simply are not affecting my rating any more.

Thoughts?

DrawMaster

Interesting idea.

I really don't care what people think about me or my rating or the average rating of my opponents: I view that as of value to me, not them. But I hear you. There are folk who will look at that and ask questions. Pretty petty of them, if you ask me, though. But then, people can be petty.

IF the true value of the stat is for the player himself/herself, then opting for a formula that gives you the best info for you makes sense. Indeed, if one were to implement this, one could put a 2nd number in there that identifies the basis. For example:

Avg. Opp (ALL GAMES).: 1305

or 

Avg. Opp. (Last 100 games): 1305

Might be a cool idea. Doubt it would make the Top 10 list of desired improvements, but it has its logic and value.

Nytik

Admittedly, DrawMaster, those that do such things could be considered petty. I myself use my rating as a measure of progress and targets/goals. Therefore, this would also be of value to myself, not just my opponents.

I like your idea of having an overall AND a smaller selection.

redsoxfan33
Nytik wrote:

Admittedly, DrawMaster, those that do such things could be considered petty. I myself use my rating as a measure of progress and targets/goals. Therefore, this would also be of value to myself, not just my opponents.

I like your idea of having an overall AND a smaller selection.


 Yes, one of my suggestions as far as chess.com goes was updating the stats page with new and improved stats as well as more in depth measurements.

Kupov
DrawMaster wrote:

Interesting idea.

I really don't care what people think about me or my rating or the average rating of my opponents: I view that as of value to me, not them. But I hear you. There are folk who will look at that and ask questions. Pretty petty of them, if you ask me, though. But then, people can be petty.

IF the true value of the stat is for the player himself/herself, then opting for a formula that gives you the best info for you makes sense. Indeed, if one were to implement this, one could put a 2nd number in there that identifies the basis. For example:

 

Avg. Opp (ALL GAMES).: 1305

or 

 

Avg. Opp. (Last 100 games): 1305

Might be a cool idea. Doubt it would make the Top 10 list of desired improvements, but it has its logic and value.


I agree with this. When I started playing at chess.com my rating was 800 or so, I've gone up to 1700 but my average opponent rating is hindered by all the time I spent beloe 1100 or so.

DanielleSurferGirl

Why dwell on your ratings, & instead just take satisfaction in games that you win. If you know your a good player, it doesn't matter what your rating says.

AWARDCHESS

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/what-is-your-average-opponents-rating

Nytik

DanielleSurferGirl, I can take satisfaction in the games I win AND use my rating to track progress. The only way I know my rating is accurate is by using the average opponent rating.

aansel

I agree with this post that an Average Opponent rating for the last 100 games makes sense though some people play 100+ games at once. This is should be a very easy add-in if Erik and team deem it important. 

Nytik

Karl_, my RD is high enough for me. Therefore, I use my average opponent rating to calculate validity. Obviously, if it's very low, my rating is artificially boosted. Well, on the system I suggest, at least.

EnoneBlue

great Idea, when I first joined chess.com I was rated around 1000, that was a year and a half ago. Somehow I made it to 2100 but my average opponent is 1500, but that is only because I started off as a weaker player playing weaker opponents..

colonyroad

I am new to chess.com but believe that my average opponent is incorrectly calculated.  In standard live chess; my avg opp is listed as 1224, but my avg opp wins, loses and draws are w(51%) 1230, loses(47%) 1284 and draws (2%) 1296. This results in a avg opp rating of 1257 vs the listed 1224.  Any Thoughts

ponz111

I have a bunch of games rated on here I did not play. I only played two games other than my 2  Exhibition matches where I played several games as

Black vs The  Ponziani and several games as Black vs The Kings Gambit. And that was Centaur Chess and not rated.

Anyone or staff know how I can get rid of all the games I did not play? [and the low ratings from those games]