давае ты можэж
it's more easy to me get advantage in the opening against lower players.
> While you are a stronger player overall than your opponent, you might not be better at every single aspect of the game.
I appreciate this theme out of your blog. What's in a rating? average and overall versus all aspects.
I think this is a good thing to keep dissecting. What aspects of the game can be separated for which a single number can represented an average of. You gave some reasonable most global dichotomies illustrating that.
But then I wonder about those aspects that dissect the world of positions even further. Is one game enough or a growing game segment enough to guage more specific inexperience aspects in the lower rated compared to ours. I think of the notion of familiarity (whatever that might mean under that hood for now, i.e. if it were dissectible itself).
I always wondered if as we play we could figure out certain very boardy aspects of other player, without any rating knowledge even. I don't think so from my current state of understanding or playing.
I guess the question might be more adressable for more experienced people with some notion of what rating might mean for having had that part of the chess experience (not mine at all, only since I play on lichess, and in correspondance that is not that generalizable, for calculations aspect can be leveled leaving more of the other aspects to weigh in. I think). Why I ask.
I appreciate this theme out of your blog. What's in a rating? average and overall versus all aspects.
I think this is a good thing to keep dissecting. What aspects of the game can be separated for which a single number can represented an average of. You gave some reasonable most global dichotomies illustrating that.
But then I wonder about those aspects that dissect the world of positions even further. Is one game enough or a growing game segment enough to guage more specific inexperience aspects in the lower rated compared to ours. I think of the notion of familiarity (whatever that might mean under that hood for now, i.e. if it were dissectible itself).
I always wondered if as we play we could figure out certain very boardy aspects of other player, without any rating knowledge even. I don't think so from my current state of understanding or playing.
I guess the question might be more adressable for more experienced people with some notion of what rating might mean for having had that part of the chess experience (not mine at all, only since I play on lichess, and in correspondance that is not that generalizable, for calculations aspect can be leveled leaving more of the other aspects to weigh in. I think). Why I ask.
@dboing said in #4:
> I appreciate this theme out of your blog. What's in a rating? average and overall versus all aspects.
> I think this is a good thing to keep dissecting. What aspects of the game can be separated for which a single number can represented an average of. You gave some reasonable most global dichotomies illustrating that.
>
> But then I wonder about those aspects that dissect the world of positions even further. Is one game enough or a growing game segment enough to guage more specific inexperience aspects in the lower rated compared to ours. I think of the notion of familiarity (whatever that might mean under that hood for now, i.e. if it were dissectible itself).
>
> I always wondered if as we play we could figure out certain very boardy aspects of other player, without any rating knowledge even. I don't think so from my current state of understanding or playing.
>
> I guess the question might be more adressable for more experienced people with some notion of what rating might mean for having had that part of the chess experience (not mine at all, only since I play on lichess, and in correspondance that is not that generalizable, for calculations aspect can be leveled leaving more of the other aspects to weigh in. I think). Why I ask.
It seems like you're discussing the concept of rating in the context of a game like chess and how it relates to various aspects of player skill and experience. Rating in games like chess is used to estimate a player's skill level and can be a valuable tool for matchmaking and comparing players. However, your question raises several interesting points and considerations:
Rating as an Average: In many rating systems, the rating is essentially an average performance metric that considers a player's overall ability. It's an attempt to summarize a player's skill into a single number. While this can provide a useful point of reference, it does oversimplify the complexity of a player's abilities.
Global Dichotomies: You mentioned that rating systems often represent global dichotomies. For example, a player might be classified as "beginner," "intermediate," or "advanced." These broad categories can give a rough idea of a player's skill level, but they don't capture the nuances of specific strengths and weaknesses.
Specific Aspects of Skill: As you rightly pointed out, players can have strengths and weaknesses in various aspects of the game. Some may be strong at openings but weak in endgames, while others excel in tactics but struggle with strategy. A single rating may not reflect these differences.
Familiarity and Experience: Familiarity with specific positions, openings, or types of positions is an important factor in chess. A player who is well-versed in certain lines may perform better in those positions. Experience in particular scenarios can be a significant advantage.
Player Characteristics: It's challenging to deduce specific player characteristics, such as their playing style or preferences, solely from their rating. While experienced players may be better at recognizing certain patterns or styles, it's not always straightforward.
Correspondence Chess: You mentioned that your experience is primarily in correspondence chess, which can be quite different from over-the-board chess. Correspondence chess allows players more time for analysis and can reduce the impact of intuition and psychology. This aspect also affects how you might interpret player ratings.
Rating and Skill Development: It's important to remember that a player's rating can change over time as they improve or decline in skill. Rating is not static and can serve as a tool for tracking progress.
In conclusion, while rating systems are valuable for their simplicity and usefulness in matchmaking, they do have limitations in capturing the full spectrum of a player's abilities and characteristics. Experienced players often develop a more nuanced understanding of their opponents, but even then, many aspects of a player's skill and style remain hidden. For a more comprehensive assessment, additional data and analysis are typically required.
> I appreciate this theme out of your blog. What's in a rating? average and overall versus all aspects.
> I think this is a good thing to keep dissecting. What aspects of the game can be separated for which a single number can represented an average of. You gave some reasonable most global dichotomies illustrating that.
>
> But then I wonder about those aspects that dissect the world of positions even further. Is one game enough or a growing game segment enough to guage more specific inexperience aspects in the lower rated compared to ours. I think of the notion of familiarity (whatever that might mean under that hood for now, i.e. if it were dissectible itself).
>
> I always wondered if as we play we could figure out certain very boardy aspects of other player, without any rating knowledge even. I don't think so from my current state of understanding or playing.
>
> I guess the question might be more adressable for more experienced people with some notion of what rating might mean for having had that part of the chess experience (not mine at all, only since I play on lichess, and in correspondance that is not that generalizable, for calculations aspect can be leveled leaving more of the other aspects to weigh in. I think). Why I ask.
It seems like you're discussing the concept of rating in the context of a game like chess and how it relates to various aspects of player skill and experience. Rating in games like chess is used to estimate a player's skill level and can be a valuable tool for matchmaking and comparing players. However, your question raises several interesting points and considerations:
Rating as an Average: In many rating systems, the rating is essentially an average performance metric that considers a player's overall ability. It's an attempt to summarize a player's skill into a single number. While this can provide a useful point of reference, it does oversimplify the complexity of a player's abilities.
Global Dichotomies: You mentioned that rating systems often represent global dichotomies. For example, a player might be classified as "beginner," "intermediate," or "advanced." These broad categories can give a rough idea of a player's skill level, but they don't capture the nuances of specific strengths and weaknesses.
Specific Aspects of Skill: As you rightly pointed out, players can have strengths and weaknesses in various aspects of the game. Some may be strong at openings but weak in endgames, while others excel in tactics but struggle with strategy. A single rating may not reflect these differences.
Familiarity and Experience: Familiarity with specific positions, openings, or types of positions is an important factor in chess. A player who is well-versed in certain lines may perform better in those positions. Experience in particular scenarios can be a significant advantage.
Player Characteristics: It's challenging to deduce specific player characteristics, such as their playing style or preferences, solely from their rating. While experienced players may be better at recognizing certain patterns or styles, it's not always straightforward.
Correspondence Chess: You mentioned that your experience is primarily in correspondence chess, which can be quite different from over-the-board chess. Correspondence chess allows players more time for analysis and can reduce the impact of intuition and psychology. This aspect also affects how you might interpret player ratings.
Rating and Skill Development: It's important to remember that a player's rating can change over time as they improve or decline in skill. Rating is not static and can serve as a tool for tracking progress.
In conclusion, while rating systems are valuable for their simplicity and usefulness in matchmaking, they do have limitations in capturing the full spectrum of a player's abilities and characteristics. Experienced players often develop a more nuanced understanding of their opponents, but even then, many aspects of a player's skill and style remain hidden. For a more comprehensive assessment, additional data and analysis are typically required.
Thanks to @dboing and @iamveryrich for their thoughful replies. It's indeed important to remember that rating is just a number that reflects results. While helpful, that number neglects the nuanced list of strengths and weaknesses every player has. I hope my blog encourages you to delve into those, and become a better strategic decision maker both before and during the game.
Rating only reflect full game outcomes, not necessarily all positions of the games familiarity (using this term as most likely meaningful to anyone, although not yet precise, on purpose). However, we do expect human high level players to have had enough experience over my types of positions, from having played many types of players of nearby average strength (over all variables behind rating estimates, including what I am hinting at: familiarity). Can they get a sense for same ratings, about what is behind the rating with that aspect familiarity with position types (adjust type as needed).
I was asking whether one game or more could allow without prior knowledge of the opponent, during one game or across a series to identify chess skills as familiarity with position types, as themselves probably part of what makes experience digestion or skill set. Of if that is not possible. In correspondence, one can play however they want, and separate intuition from calculation a lot better as all the time in the world for introspection. But I also tend to play the same person many games. (And have in my amateur non-rated pre-online lichess experience, not serious no club, but having loved chess long ago), So while I am not conscious enough of such things I wonder if I was not subconsciously finding weaknesses. Answer is likely no.
But for expert players, can they figure out over a sequence on moves in one game, during the game, or in a series of matches, without preparation knowledge about opponents, but maybe the rating, where finer grain board definable weaknesses might lie (about the persons abilities, not the position itself, just making sure, or patterns of position dis-familiarity). I do not have the words, I don't think many of us have the words, as rating is basically strength usually. No more questions asked.
One should not put too many points for chat GPT to make a summary of. Hard to know how to segment a rambling post like mine. where is the logical pause... how many paragraphs should be output per how many of mine input..
I was asking whether one game or more could allow without prior knowledge of the opponent, during one game or across a series to identify chess skills as familiarity with position types, as themselves probably part of what makes experience digestion or skill set. Of if that is not possible. In correspondence, one can play however they want, and separate intuition from calculation a lot better as all the time in the world for introspection. But I also tend to play the same person many games. (And have in my amateur non-rated pre-online lichess experience, not serious no club, but having loved chess long ago), So while I am not conscious enough of such things I wonder if I was not subconsciously finding weaknesses. Answer is likely no.
But for expert players, can they figure out over a sequence on moves in one game, during the game, or in a series of matches, without preparation knowledge about opponents, but maybe the rating, where finer grain board definable weaknesses might lie (about the persons abilities, not the position itself, just making sure, or patterns of position dis-familiarity). I do not have the words, I don't think many of us have the words, as rating is basically strength usually. No more questions asked.
One should not put too many points for chat GPT to make a summary of. Hard to know how to segment a rambling post like mine. where is the logical pause... how many paragraphs should be output per how many of mine input..
Even though I dont play much OTB these days, 'tension' and maintaining it always seems to be difficult for weaker players to understand and often release it due to the complications, a principal all coaches should hammer on and often.
notions. tension being of dynamic and static nature. The move first conflated with grab first. Exchange being action, something happening that is tangible in the attrition game of chess. Ok. coarse "landmark". In a search we need to start wide. A good one.
thanks. (lay of the land, I mean by coarse, not vague at all but encompassing with visible things first). Pardon my anemic words, I am searching, and language again gets in the way, or is tool in need of development.
thanks. (lay of the land, I mean by coarse, not vague at all but encompassing with visible things first). Pardon my anemic words, I am searching, and language again gets in the way, or is tool in need of development.
i think, it's quite easy to win game after continously finding tactics in early middlegame