¡Hay 12858 jugadores conectados!
Hombre vs. Máquina - ¡Buena suerte!
Partidas por correspondencia
¡Vota por la jugada ganadora!
¿Te consideras apto?
¡Mejora tu visión táctica!
¡Recibe consejos e ideas!
¡Aprende de los mejores!
¡Ver millones de partidas!
¡Tu entrenador virtual!
¡Perfecciona tus aperturas!
¡Prueba tus habilidades!
¡Encuentra el mejor maestro!
¿Puedes resolverlo cada día?
¡Unifica tus conocimientos!
¡Principiantes, empiecen aquí!
¡Haz amigos y juega en equipo!
¡Noticias del mundo del ajedrez!
¡Busca a otros miembros!
¡Buscar clubes y eventos locales!
¿Quién es tu mejor amigo?
¡Lee lo que los miembros dicen!
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.
"Old School Analysis with Uncle Yermo! - Host GM Alex Yermolinsky "
Chessbazaar's Dubrovnik 4" crimson problem?
Por Kycoo hace unos pocos minutos
Por Oraoradeki hace 17 minutos
Por ipcress12 hace 20 minutos
Question for 2000+ level players
Por chessweb101 hace 26 minutos
Chess collectors international
Por smc5910 hace 28 minutos
A Unigue Smothered Mate
Por rbjones999 hace 29 minutos
Por g-man15 hace 31 minutos
Prosecution against pdela
Por tkbunny hace 34 minutos
Sixteen Reasons Why Chess Is Not Good For You
Por ipcress12 hace 38 minutos
3/2/2015 - Back Door Entry
Por iusegambits hace 40 minutos
¿Por qué unirse? | Temas de Ajedrez |
Acerca de |
Preguntas Frecuentes |
Ayuda y Soporte |
Mapa del Sitio
Política de Privacidad |
Aviso Legal |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Ajedrez - Español
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!