on 'deserving' your rating

[ftangredi]

 A number of people who have had good tournaments recently have questioned here whether they 'deserve' their rating.

A rating is not Platonic. Your ideal rating is not floating in the heavens somewhere.

The ratings are self-defining. They are based on their own set of criteria. Your rating at any given point is defined only by those criteria and are

Comments

[jigsawn]

But do we deserve to have to listen to people talking about how they deserve a rating?

[ftangredi]

If we all stopped to think about whether people deserved to listen to the things we post, most of us would end up posting a lot less!

[jigsawn]

I'm doing my part by posting a lot less recently...

[ftangredi]

I tend to post in spurts myself.

[sr_orangepants]

I'm going to have to take a page out of the ididjonassalk playbook here. I amend what I said in my recent AC post slightly. I should be rated 14 points higher than I currently am. ;)

[ftangredi]

Why? You don't deserve it!

[sr_orangepants]

In case you missed it...

My current rating: 1631
Your current rating: 1644

Do the math. :)

[ftangredi]

Okay, in that case.

I DON'T DESERVE IT!

[spherulitic]

I'm afraid I have to disagree

[ftangredi]

Yes, but under the rating system we have, the number means what it does. Therefore, you deserve that number because that's the number the system gives you.

I did NOT say that you deserve to be considered better than somebody else. I said you deserve the number you get. But the number itself means only what the number means.

[spherulitic]

That's kind of a tautology. You're not using rating to measure anything in your argument.

Ostensibly a rating is to produce some way of ordering players by ability. A is rated higher than B, so A is better than B. I suppose one reasonable way to define "deserved rating" is to say, does that implication lead to an accurate conclusion? Is the higher-rated A actually better than B? In Joe B's case -- and I pick on him because I know he likes it -- "Joe is rated higher than Joel Sherman so Joe is better than Joel Sherman" is, pretty clearly, an invalid conclusion. So, either Joe's high rating is not deserved or Joel's low rating is not deserved, or, likely, some combination of the two. Just how high Joe's deserved rating is, well, we won't know until he plays some more tournament games.

I'm not trying to be difficult about this, but I think, as value-loaded a term as "deserved" is, it's a useful concept.

[ftangredi]

Maybe the best way to think about what ratings measure is not to think about individual numbers, but general placement.

Is a 1776 player necessarily better than a 1775 player? Of course not.

Is a 1776 player better than a 1676 player? More likely.

Is a 1776 player better than a 1376 player? Definitely.

So, yes, it does measure something.

But I think it should be viewed, not as an evaluation of your skill, but as a snapshot of your performance up to that point, and at a particular moment in time.

[ididjonassalk]

So, then, are you saying that I deserved to finish 13-2 in the Albany ME? Deserved to be 1843 and ranked 30th immediately after? Hogwash. The luck involved in that 15-game run remains unbelievable. Even now, give me a list of the top 200 ranked people and I can easily tick off at least 100 whose skills are appreciably better than mine.

Jason

[ftangredi]

Yes, I am saying that. You did it, so you deserve it.

Various people named Jason need to stop biting the hand that is trying to pat them on the back!

[ididjonassalk]

I don't know if I agree with the "I did it, therefore I deserve it" logic. But trust me, I enjoyed that 1843 for the 2-3 hours I had it! :) And I'm enjoying the 1778 now, even though it's debatable whether or not I deserve it.

Jason, who will stop hand-biting

[sr_orangepants]

I'm not trying to bite the hand. Just a little fun at your expense. I tease because I love.

[lordiceman]

"Just enjoy it while it lasts."

I agree with that part totally. Anyone who has a great tournament should be able to enjoy it and ride that high for a while.

As far as "deserving" ratings, it depends how you frame the discussion. I think what many people mean by that is "where do I really stand?" In the case of establishing a new career peak, it's a legitimate question. Few, if any, are as good as their peak rating. With more established players, one can see a track record. If your rating generally falls within a certain range, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. With newer players still on the rise, it's harder to say.

So when someone crosses 1600 or 1800 for the first time, it's perfectly reasonable to wonder if that new height can be be maintained or even improved. In fact, I think it's healthy for a player to question him/herself. Better than declaring "I've arrived" with a sense of entitlement.

Of course, one could also that argue that ratings aren't worth discussing or obsessing about all that much :)

[ftangredi]

I agree about the not agonizing and about the not being complacent. Absolutely.

In the end, I guess what I'm saying is that one's rating is ALWAYS a snapshot in time. We don't need ratings to know who the best players are in the long run. We all know that already.