10138 zalogowanych graczy!
Człowiek kontra maszyna - powodzenia!
Gra korespondencyjna - grasz, kiedy Ci pasuje!
Głosuj na najlepszy ruch, aby wygrać!
Gotów na wyzwanie?
Wyostrz swój zmysł taktyczny!
Porady i sugestie
Ucz się od najlepszych graczy i zawodowców!
Przeglądaj miliony gier mistrzów!
Twój wirtualny trener szachowy!
Udoskonal swoje debiuty!
Sprawdź się grając z komputerem!
Znajdź prywatnego trenera dla siebie!
Dasz radę rozwiązać je każdego dnia?
Złóż to w całość!
Początkujący, zacznijcie tutaj!
Zaprzyjaźnij się i graj drużynowo!
Wiadomości ze świata szachów!
Wyszukaj użytkowników Chess.com!
Znajdź lokalne kluby i wydarzenia!
Kto jest Twoim najlepszym przyjacielem?
Przeczytaj, o czym piszą użytkownicy!
Watching the movie "Moneyball" one wonders if there could be a "sabermetric" equivalent in chess. Are there any statistical measures, yet to be discovered quantifiable skills that would rank and characterize players other than the Elo rating? Say, winning percentage with white, with black, draw percentage, win percentage against higher rated opponents, loss percentage against lower rated opponent, etc. Any ideas or suggestions?
I guess it would lead to an attempt of dissecting what amounts to "greatness" in chess. Doesn't it seem oversimplified that Elo rating is the one and only measure? I agree it gives you a tool "This is how good you are!", but it does not tell you "This is why you are so good!", or "This is how you could get even better!" Say, you are a developing chess player, but appear to be stuck at say, 2000. How would you know what area to focus on to get better if you do not know what constitutes a succesful player. Say, you are not blessed with a guru, an all-knowing master, who sees through your blatant weakness and bammm, comes up with a fix and there you go to 2400.
I would like to see which players have the highest winning% as white, and the lowest losing% as black. Whining% would be an important factor in assessing a player's potential I would imagine.
Funnily enough, you can look at drawing percent as a marker for a strong player. It takes a fair amount of technique and knowledge to draw a good portion of your games.
Good point. It still bugs me when a player simplifies into an objectively drawn position against a certain player, as part of a strategy in a tournament. Or goes for a perpetual when there's more to be had, because a draw is all that's needed. But of course many draws are hard fought and exciting.
The reason a more nuanced metric system would be helpful, because it would help to judge the areas that would need improvement. On one hand one can look at players playing certain openings as their chance of success is obviously higher with the most frequently played opening. One can look at number of moves played till decision or draw. One can look at draw achieved after how many moves. One can break down opening move numbers, middle game move numbers and endgame move numbers.
But it would also help to find a system of self help: visualization, calculation, mate pattern recognition, tactical awareness, strategical planning, etc.
what's the main difference between a 1300 and a 1800 player?
Tapani 3 minut temu
True or false? Chess will never be solved! why?
Ziryab 17 minut temu
Bishops of the Same Color
batgirl 28 minut temu
9/23/2014 - Mate in 3
DaveOakRidges 33 minut temu
KRR vs. KR
I_Am_Second 42 minut temu
Stains-Good Business or Bad
Spiritbro77 43 minut temu
Stuff Non-Chess Players Say
dragonair234 49 minut temu
1600 at last!
Chicken_Monster 56 minut temu
Is chess fun?
Chicken_Monster 62 minut temu
7/29/2014 - Full House
AKAL1 94 minut temu
Dlaczego warto dołączyć | Tematy szachowe |
O nas |
Najczęstsze pytania |
Pomoc i wsparcie |
Polityka prywatności |
Regulamin serwisu |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Szachy - Polski
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!