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 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?