| |
BGonline.org Forums
The sooner, the better
Posted By: Matt Cohn-Geier In Response To: The sooner, the better (Rich Munitz)
Date: Wednesday, 17 June 2009, at 5:20 a.m.
Stats will necessarily show half the players having above average results and half having below average results. I do share the concern of some that while there may be stats available for lookup of all players in the database, that any reports that are published should only show LEADERS; the top N in W/L, Elo, whatever. I don't think a report should ever be published showing who has the 4-29 record and a 1250 Elo.
Posting this rather late in the day. I haven't been posting very much recently but thought I would weigh in here w/ my two cents.
I don't see any reason why things shouldn't be reported. Most 4-29, 1250 ELO players don't masquerade as world class players. In chess, people tend to cling to their ratings tighter than...other things which they cling tightly to. Even if they are not very good, the incentive for improvement is quite addictive. You might be 4-29 now, but if you can improve to 16-39 and 1450 ELO you have made a pretty tremendous improvement in your game, or been lucky or unlucky.
My guess is that ratings would generate less of a sensation in BG than in chess because it is more difficult to link a rating to immediate past results. You might just have gotten lucky or unlucky in your past few matches, and who knows how good you were playing. But I don't see why that should be an impediment to rating Intermediate fields or Amateur Jackpots, just keep everything separate.
No need to rate a 1 point match with no prize money on the line IMHO.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.