04-29-2023, 06:18 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-29-2023, 11:48 PM by hank.)
I think there is a fundamental flaw in being so reluctant to use a single ELO rating for each of the main variations of the game.
There is a strong correlation between the ability of a player over both length of match and (probably slightly weaker) over the use of a timer.
So somebody like me, for example, who plays a 3 or 5 point match very rarely, and whose 9 point matches are all in the context of one tournament, will apear to have very different elos. However anybody who wanted to know whether I was any good would be crazy to look at anything other than my 7 point elo, because that is based on a vastly greater sample size.
Come to think of it I could, if I cared enough, use this to massage my elo. I could set up a match card with my lowest rated variation, thus giving the impression that I am, say, a 1400 player, then decline to play that length and, when invited to play, offer my (more realistic) 1600-rated length!
There is a strong correlation between the ability of a player over both length of match and (probably slightly weaker) over the use of a timer.
So somebody like me, for example, who plays a 3 or 5 point match very rarely, and whose 9 point matches are all in the context of one tournament, will apear to have very different elos. However anybody who wanted to know whether I was any good would be crazy to look at anything other than my 7 point elo, because that is based on a vastly greater sample size.
Come to think of it I could, if I cared enough, use this to massage my elo. I could set up a match card with my lowest rated variation, thus giving the impression that I am, say, a 1400 player, then decline to play that length and, when invited to play, offer my (more realistic) 1600-rated length!