[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

an alternative

Posted By: David Rockwell
Date: Wednesday, 17 June 2009, at 6:22 p.m.

In Response To: Bill Davis is Smarter Than You Think (Christian Munk-Christensen)

I would not fight the idea of publishing only the top part of the list. But, the idea of supressing information doesn't feel right.

I would propose another angle. Ratings take a time to converge to their proper level. In a game with a chance element, that's going to take longer than it would for a game like Chess. I don't see a reason to publish provisional ratings based on a small number of games since they aren't likely to be accurate anyway. How about publishing the whole list only for those who have played a minimum number of rated matches? The number could be determined later when we had an idea of how many matches are required to be credible.

If someone has played 100 rated matches and their ELO sucks, it probably should suck. Publish it. Everyone is going to have an idea that it sucks anyway. What is the point of coddling fragile egos?

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.