Talk:Chessmetrics

message: I believe this guy is just trying to promote his chessmetrics idea.  He has already gave himself 5 free plugs on every chess biography I read here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.221.226.3 (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-promotion ? 

message: * Numerous articles on Chessmetrics, by Sonas, have been in Chessbase, e.g. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2354 , for a full list use google.
* Also a few have been published in The Week in Chess, e.g. http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/sonas1.html
* Noted chess author John L. Watson mentions chessmetrics - http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/jwatsonbkrev82.html . Interesting (for me) is that he does not advocate it, he simply assumes his readers know about it: "I was surprised to find from Chessmetrics that he (Alexei Dreev) was in the top ten players in the world for about a year (and briefly #9), and he stayed within the top 12 for almost two and a half years."
* Guid and Bratko cite chessmetrics in a published paper. It is on the internet at chessbase ( http://www.chessbase.com/news/2006/world_champions2006.pdf ), but was also published in the ICGA Journal (Vol 29, No. 2, June 2006, pages 65-73). Peter Ballard (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As you know, Elo wasn't a statistician or mathematician.  Neither was Harkness.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Peter.  I am very happy to see that someone understands notability here.  A couple of those references, as you say, simply mention chessmetrics (I can't tell if they are mentioning the website or the program).  But, there is the ability to use them as references on the article itself to demonstrate notability in the article, not just on the discussion page.  Side note... I did a google search and I find Sonas' marketing speak rather self-centered: "Chessmetrics is the most popular chess tool used by all chess professionals and most amateurs!"  It makes me wonder if he has anything to back his own claims. -- kainaw™ 02:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the references to the article. I agree that Sonas is quite self-promoting, but we should be able to look past that, and describe and use Chessmetrics on its merits. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  Now notability is met within the article.  I mention Sonas' self-promoting because he uses phrases such as "the most popular" and "used by all professionals".  If he has something to back those claims, they could be used here to note that this is, in fact, the most popular used by all professionals. -- kainaw™ 12:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use this Section for the Mr. Sonas links, which I requested, so that everyone can read them 

message: (I've split this section out, so the above section is purely a list of links, which was Sentriclecub's original intention). Peter Ballard (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As you know, Elo wasn't a statistician or mathematician.  Neither was Harkness.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Peter.  I am very happy to see that someone understands notability here.  A couple of those references, as you say, simply mention chessmetrics (I can't tell if they are mentioning the website or the program).  But, there is the ability to use them as references on the article itself to demonstrate notability in the article, not just on the discussion page.  Side note... I did a google search and I find Sonas' marketing speak rather self-centered: "Chessmetrics is the most popular chess tool used by all chess professionals and most amateurs!"  It makes me wonder if he has anything to back his own claims. -- kainaw™ 02:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the references to the article. I agree that Sonas is quite self-promoting, but we should be able to look past that, and describe and use Chessmetrics on its merits. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  Now notability is met within the article.  I mention Sonas' self-promoting because he uses phrases such as "the most popular" and "used by all professionals".  If he has something to back those claims, they could be used here to note that this is, in fact, the most popular used by all professionals. -- kainaw™ 12:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Forgive me for re-opening this arguement - but has Chessmetrics yet had any official acceptance by a statistical body? Has it been accepted in the form of an academic paper?
I do not count the paper used by the two economists, 1 because they are economists, and 2 because they did not compare the results given by given by FIDE ratings (at least as far as I can see)--ZincBelief (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Their being economists is no obstacle - formal analyses of games are often done by economists, see Economics#Game_theory. They found Chessmetrics ratings (which they often refer to as "Sonas ratings") so valuable that they only considered games where both players had Chessmetrics ratings,  and explain why they found these ratings useful. To turn your questions round, which alternatives receive better independent support? --Philcha (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Elo was a physicist.  Harkness also devised a rating system, but he wasn't a mathmetician either.  These people did it by hand.  Sonas had a big database and computers to help him out.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither point answers the key issue - unless this is independently validated it is original research. Who is to say that they didn't use Sonas Ratings purely because it supported their case. Any serious academic paper on the subject, and trustable academic paper on the subject would have used both methods. Otherwise it is simply flirting with an untried theory, an unproved theory. I do not trust the rigour of the approach used by these two economists. It is not a scientific approach. --ZincBelief (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Under WP:V and WP:NOR your opinions of the 2 economists' reasons do not matter at all. If you can find another independent and reliable source that presents a different view, that would probably be well worth adding. --Philcha (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is actually that there is no paper that proves chessmetrics as a reliable and statistically valid rating scheme. That I point out the flaws in the paper quoted is of course my own 'research', normally known as common sense. I do not rule out that chessmetrics can be valid, I am simply saying that it has not shown to be valid. An economics paper using the rating scheme does not validate it. It is patently not the relevant field.--ZincBelief (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know of any independent validation of Elo's method, the method by Harkness, or the one used in Great Brittan.  The chessmetrics website shows how his method is more accurate than Elo's.  That stands to reason.  Elo made some assumptions about the distribution.  Sonas had a great deal of information (much more than Elo) and he had a computer to test various methods.  It is clear to me that he came up with a more accurate system.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  And as far as your point about original research, that applies to work done by editors.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: I think the system gives a zero weight only to games 4+ years old, not 2 years. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 2 or 4 years?

message: The Chessmetrics site has not been updated since 2005.  That's important enough to be mentioned in the main article.  Abenr (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Updates 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chessmetrics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425121444/http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=190030SS3SS3S073076191404141000000000000010100 to http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=190030SS3SS3S073076191404141000000000000010100
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110813123115/http://chess.co.uk/twic/jwatsonbkrev82.html to http://chess.co.uk/twic/jwatsonbkrev82.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chessmetrics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110809102543/http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/Formulas.asp to http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/Formulas.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It's quite a few years late for this, but I just read some interesting commentary by Mark Weeks on the reliability of chessmetrics and the Moule and Nye study mentioned prominently and repeatedly on this page: http://worldchesschampionship.blogspot.com/2010/02/calculating-collusion.html.  In short Weeks argues that the Moule and Nye study is flawed precisely because it relies on dubious chessmetrics ratings.  Weeks points out a few oddities in the chessmetrics ratings for Zurich 1953.  Chessmetrics ranks Reshevsky 16 points higher than Smyslov.  Reshevsky was an all-time great, but Smyslov would become WC and Reshevsky was not stronger than Smyslov in 1953.  Also Chessmtrics ranks Stahlberg higher than Keres and within 2 points of Bronstein and Boleslavksy, also absurd.  No analysis based on those numbers can be considered sound.  Weeks also considers what flaws in chessmetrics might produce these odd ratings.  Quale (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: A blog is not a WP:RS in any case. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moule and Nye and the reliability of chessmetrics