Statistics

Sort:
EricOcean

When you become a new member here, you get ranked 1200 as a starting point. You then start playing and gain or lose points to quickly get to "your level".

Fine in theory. HOWEVER, what is the effect on this method on overall rankings on the site?

Because win / loss points are awarded on the basis of the rating difference, this might have the effect of keeping the mean rating within a certain bandwith.

A new player's actual level can be say, 800 but, because he is new is ranked at 1100 - 1200. When someone with an actual level of 900 now meets this new player (and wins), his level gets boosted artificially high. This will happen a number of times (as relatively more new players are in this bandwith). He quickly rises to a 1200 rating.

But, as HIS win points artificially got boosted by all the new players who were actually "worse" players, the next time he wins or loses, the points gets or loses will be less.

The further you get from that 1200 level, the more events conspire against you to return you to that level.

A similar scenario happens when an "established" player meets someone who should be ranked higher then 1200 when he joins.

It's not the individual cases that matter ofcourse, afterall, who cares, but overall, I sense that this system actually invalidates the entire ranking method.

Perhaps a system where all "new" members play against eachother would already significantly change this? Or perhaps where the rating of a new player does not affect the othert player's ranking so much until the "new" player acheives a consistent win / loss level.

Thoughts?

cshuenss
EricOcean wrote:

When you become a new member here, you get ranked 1200 as a starting point. You then start playing and gain or lose points to quickly get to "your level".

Fine in theory. HOWEVER, what is the effect on this method on overall rankings on the site?

Because win / loss points are awarded on the basis of the rating difference, this might have the effect of keeping the mean rating within a certain bandwith.

A new player's actual level can be say, 800 but, because he is new is ranked at 1100 - 1200. When someone with an actual level of 900 now meets this new player (and wins), his level gets boosted artificially high. This will happen a number of times (as relatively more new players are in this bandwith). He quickly rises to a 1200 rating.

But, as HIS win points artificially got boosted by all the new players who were actually "worse" players, the next time he wins or loses, the points gets or loses will be less.

The further you get from that 1200 level, the more events conspire against you to return you to that level.

A similar scenario happens when an "established" player meets someone who should be ranked higher then 1200 when he joins.

It's not the individual cases that matter ofcourse, afterall, who cares, but overall, I sense that this system actually invalidates the entire ranking method.

Perhaps a system where all "new" members play against eachother would already significantly change this? Or perhaps where the rating of a new player does not affect the othert player's ranking so much until the "new" player acheives a consistent win / loss level.

Thoughts?

Depends on the old player's Glicko RD. The lower your RD, the less your rating will get affected. If your opponent is new, then your rating won't go up/go down as much as it should.

waffllemaster
EricOcean wrote:

When you become a new member here, you get ranked 1200 as a starting point. You then start playing and gain or lose points to quickly get to "your level".

Fine in theory. HOWEVER, what is the effect on this method on overall rankings on the site?

Because win / loss points are awarded on the basis of the rating difference, this might have the effect of keeping the mean rating within a certain bandwith.

A new player's actual level can be say, 800 but, because he is new is ranked at 1100 - 1200. When someone with an actual level of 900 now meets this new player (and wins), his level gets boosted artificially high. This will happen a number of times (as relatively more new players are in this bandwith). He quickly rises to a 1200 rating.

But, as HIS win points artificially got boosted by all the new players who were actually "worse" players, the next time he wins or loses, the points gets or loses will be less.

The further you get from that 1200 level, the more events conspire against you to return you to that level.

A similar scenario happens when an "established" player meets someone who should be ranked higher then 1200 when he joins.

It's not the individual cases that matter ofcourse, afterall, who cares, but overall, I sense that this system actually invalidates the entire ranking method.

Perhaps a system where all "new" members play against eachother would already significantly change this? Or perhaps where the rating of a new player does not affect the othert player's ranking so much until the "new" player acheives a consistent win / loss level.

Thoughts?

This already happens.

New player may gain or lose 100 points in 1 game.  The person they play against though (if they're active) only gains or loses a few.

AlCzervik

I'd say after 30 or more games, the rating is accurate. There aren't half established members and half newbies, so an occasional win or loss against a new member that does not have a "real" rating won't matter much.

Or, look at it this way. If an established 1800 loses to a new, but skilled member at 1200, the 1800 will probably lose around 18 points. Now at 1782, he or she will receive more points for wins now. So, in the end I believe it evens out.

waffllemaster

Also because ratings aren't an absolute measure, it makes sense that new players joining alters everyone a little.  Ratings are always relative to the group.  That's why chess.com ratings aren't the same as a USCF or BCF or FIDE rating.

If many 800 strength players join, then yes, as they lose down to 800 they feed more points into the system.  If a bunch of masters joined then they'd take away points as they climbed ~1000 points.