You are not logged in.
This thread is open.
Posted by VillageIdiot 2009-06-21 07:29:12 GMT
A suggestion for a possible change to rating algorithm.
Instead of games played over the last 6 months, just used the last 'x' games.
Games over the last six months penalises people who play alot ... like me!! :)
This was not an issue before you introduced game entry based on ratings.
Take Greg09 as an example. He is one of the most prolific players on this site. He also plays all-comers. For him to get the best rating is almost impossible. Yet Jazz and him are probably up there as the best.
Most of the chess sites I've played on just use win gives plus points, loss give minus points, the quantity of which depends on the rating of the opponent.
averaging the rating of those you have beaten in a game
averaging the rating of those who have beaten you in a game
take the difference between you and these two averaged ratings
you get positive points for the difference of the average rating you beat and ..... the inverse
your points for the game is the sum of the two points scores.
The greater the distance the 'losing averaged rating' is from your rating the less points you get.
Inverse for the winning average rating.
Obviously there is a scale here, but the idea is to get lots of points for beating better players and lose lots of points for losing to lesser players.
I don't think the algorithm is hard to code, besides gauging the scale.
Ta for your time even if you think it's rubbish..
Posted by furikawari 2009-06-22 01:10:19 GMT
You're probably thinking about ELO ratings, which are pretty commonly used for rating chess players (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system). You can adjust it to 3-4 player games by considering all player pairs and who was ahead of whom (ie, the winner beat all three other players, 2nd place beat 3rd and 4th, etc.). However, it seems likely that if Hammerite implemented a new rating system, unless there is an easy way to batch through all the games that have already been played, everyone would have to start out at 1600. Another possibility would be to run both rating systems parallel for a while until the system sorts itself out.
Posted by Hammerite 2009-06-22 02:26:12 GMT
An improvement to the "player ratings" feature is something I would like to do at some point. It may be a while before I get around to it though. I may make a minor improvement to it, along the lines of Tub's suggestion in the other thread, as a stopgap measure soon.
Posted by VillageIdiot 2009-06-22 07:44:45 GMT
sorry Hammerite, didn't equate the cutoff as anymore than a discussion on that.
'x' games does seem fairer to me (in particular!), so that would be cool
I fully appreciate you get a whole load of nothing for improving this site for us, so I won't badger you anymore on this.
Click here to return to the Board Page, or here to return to the Main Page.