🕸📝Fergus Duniho wrote on Thu, Apr 26, 2018 12:43 AM UTC:
Presently, the more games two players play together, the greater the amount of trust that is given to the outcome of their games, but each additional game they play together adds a smaller amount of trust. This is why players playing the same game together would produce a smaller increase in trust than players playing different games together in the calculations I was trying out in my previous comment. Since this is how the calculations naturally fall, is there a rationale for doing it this way instead of what I earlier proposed? If one player does well against another in multiple games, this could be more indicative of general Chess variant playing ability, whereas if one does well against another mainly in one particular game but plays that game a lot, this may merely indicate mastery in that one game instead of general skill in playing Chess variants, and that may be due to specialized knowledge rather than general intelligence. The result of doing it this way is that players who played lots of different games could see a faster rise in their ratings than a player who specialized in only a few games. However, people who specialized in only a few games would also see slower drops in their ratings if they do poorly. For each side, there would be some give and take. But if we want to give higher ratings to people who do well in many variants, then this might be the way to do it.
Presently, the more games two players play together, the greater the amount of trust that is given to the outcome of their games, but each additional game they play together adds a smaller amount of trust. This is why players playing the same game together would produce a smaller increase in trust than players playing different games together in the calculations I was trying out in my previous comment. Since this is how the calculations naturally fall, is there a rationale for doing it this way instead of what I earlier proposed? If one player does well against another in multiple games, this could be more indicative of general Chess variant playing ability, whereas if one does well against another mainly in one particular game but plays that game a lot, this may merely indicate mastery in that one game instead of general skill in playing Chess variants, and that may be due to specialized knowledge rather than general intelligence. The result of doing it this way is that players who played lots of different games could see a faster rise in their ratings than a player who specialized in only a few games. However, people who specialized in only a few games would also see slower drops in their ratings if they do poorly. For each side, there would be some give and take. But if we want to give higher ratings to people who do well in many variants, then this might be the way to do it.