09 May 11
Originally posted by ptriple42I have thought about what you raise. I understand your thinking, but I believe a RHP 2200 rating is equivalent to another RHP 2200 rating, independent generally of how the RHP 2200 ratings are achieved.
April 2011 Banded Quartets I 1800+ is a tournament I entered and which has just started.I've wondered for some time about the Relative meaning of Ratings in the sense that a 2200 player with an Opponent Average Rating of 1500 say, is not as strong as another 2200 with an OAR of 1900.And that the percentage of wins to total games played is also an indicatio ...[text shortened]... 2 other indicators I would say that coneybrush is clearly the stronger of the 3. Any opinions?
With regard particularly to OAR, a 2000+ player who has a low OAR pays the price in terms of small gains in rating points for wins and relatively large reduction for losses against (e.g., 1200-1400 rated) players. Thus, they have to win a lot of games to maintain. Whereas with a higher OAR, such as play against (e.g., 1800-1900 rated), they are more rewarded for wins and less penalized for loses. And thus can lose a few more.
It seems to even out. Thus, OAR might not be a way to differentiate the RHP ratings.
09 May 11
Originally posted by ptriple42I've been in a clan with Tigerking for a long time and he gets really good scores vs 2000+ players in the leagues. I think he's a master IRL, so I wouldn't put too much faith in your guess. OAR doesn't mean much, I don't think. The majority of my games on this site have been 1700-1900 players, but whenever I play ladder games or enter a tournament, I get paired against a ton of 1100 people, dragging my average down.
April 2011 Banded Quartets I 1800+ is a tournament I entered and which has just started.I've wondered for some time about the Relative meaning of Ratings in the sense that a 2200 player with an Opponent Average Rating of 1500 say, is not as strong as another 2200 with an OAR of 1900.And that the percentage of wins to total games played is also an indicatio ...[text shortened]... 2 other indicators I would say that coneybrush is clearly the stronger of the 3. Any opinions?
09 May 11
Moon,you have a good point there.In chess like in any sport the better your opponent is the more valuable your win is which exactly what the OAR reflects:it adds colour to the rating.
Wargamer,you may be right.I'm just trying to weigh in these other factors so as to get a more complete picture than just the the one from the rating.
10 May 11
Originally posted by ptriple42I'm sure you are correct. Something to keep in mind is a statement I heard some 25 years ago. "A rating only has significance within one organization". With this in mind, it's fruitless to compare ratings in different organizations
April 2011 Banded Quartets I 1800+ is a tournament I entered and which has just started.I've wondered for some time about the Relative meaning of Ratings in the sense that a 2200 player with an Opponent Average Rating of 1500 say, is not as strong as another 2200 with an OAR of 1900.And that the percentage of wins to total games played is also an indicatio ...[text shortened]... 2 other indicators I would say that coneybrush is clearly the stronger of the 3. Any opinions?
10 May 11
Originally posted by ptriple42Also you have to consider the games against players whose rating falls dramatically for some reason like User 129166 who between November 2009 and January 2010 dropped to 1152.
April 2011 Banded Quartets I 1800+ is a tournament I entered and which has just started.I've wondered for some time about the Relative meaning of Ratings in the sense that a 2200 player with an Opponent Average Rating of 1500 say, is not as strong as another 2200 with an OAR of 1900.And that the percentage of wins to total games played is also an indicatio ...[text shortened]... 2 other indicators I would say that coneybrush is clearly the stronger of the 3. Any opinions?
Games finished against that player when they were at their low will seriously affect the OAR of a higher rated player.