11592 zalogowanych graczy!
Człowiek kontra maszyna - powodzenia!
Gra korespondencyjna - grasz, kiedy Ci pasuje!
Głosuj na najlepszy ruch, aby wygrać!
Gotów na wyzwanie?
Backgammon, Kości i wiele więcej!
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.
10/13/2015 - Removing The Defense
mohandisusa kilka minut temu
Why are women not as successful as men in chess?
cheeky_chicky 2 minut temu
Good luck in chess?
Squishey 4 minut temu
10/12/2015 - No Escape
beauti_kanta 8 minut temu
At what tactical level should i start studying complex positional ideas?
pfren 13 minut temu
Tactics Championships!!!!!! (YOU WILL FAIL!) :) *not*
dipas 16 minut temu
SCID vs PC
HGMuller 18 minut temu
dipas 23 minut temu
8/7/15 Mate in 3
mopmopmopmop 28 minut temu
don't study openings until level 2000?
tnkhanh 31 minut temu
Dlaczego warto dołączyć | Tematy szachowe |
O nas |
Najczęstsze pytania |
Pomoc i wsparcie |
Polityka prywatności |
Regulamin serwisu |
© 2015 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!