Er zijn momenteel 10487 spelers online!
Mens tegen machine - succes!
Correspondentieschaak op elk moment!
Stem op de beste zet om te winnen!
Hoe goed ben jij?
Verfijn je tactisch inzicht!
Krijg advies en spelinzicht!
Leer van topschakers en profs!
Bekijk miljoenen meesterpartijen!
Je virtuele schaakcoach!
Perfectioneer je openingszetten!
Test je vaardigheden tegen de computer!
Vind de juiste privécoach!
Kun jij hem elke dag oplossen?
Breng alles samen!
Beginners, start hier!
Maak vrienden en speel teamwedstrijden!
Nieuws uit de schaakwereld!
Zoeken in alle leden van Chess.com
Vind lokale clubs & evenementen!
Wie van je vrienden is de beste?
Lees wat leden zeggen!
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.
Live Chess is Down
door klsnoozer 2 minuten geleden
IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFEAT ME!!!
door kualapuu 6 minuten geleden
cant play live game at all
door kco 8 minuten geleden
If you could change one rule of chess,what would it be?
door Reb 8 minuten geleden
3/4/2015 - Boxed In
door ches55master123 9 minuten geleden
What do you think of the layout of chess.com?
door eciruam 9 minuten geleden
what tactic book help u get over that hump
door timothysmall56 9 minuten geleden
door kco 13 minuten geleden
What is the best opening for the white?
door Sumitdas33 17 minuten geleden
Black's best response to the Caro-Kann Bayonet Attack?
door MattErickson 21 minuten geleden
Waarom lid worden | Schaakonderwerpen |
Veel gestelde vragen |
Hulp en ondersteuning |
Juridische informatie |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Schaken - Nederlands
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!