13921 Spieler sind gerade online!
Mensch gegen Maschine - viel Glück!
Fernschach mit freier Zeiteinteilung
Gemeinsam analysieren und für den besten Zug abstimmen
Hast du das Zeug dazu?
Schärfe deinen taktischen Blick!
Tipps und Tricks rund ums Schach
Lerne von Topspielern & Profis!
Millionen von Meisterpartien!
Dein virtueller Schachtrainer!
Feile an deinen Eröffnungen!
Teste und trainiere dein Können gegen den Computer!
Finde den richtigen privaten Trainer für dich!
Kannst du sie jeden Tag lösen?
Komplettpläne: Schach lernen, vertiefen und trainieren!
Der Startpunkt für Anfänger
Finde Freunde & spiele im Team!
Neues aus der Welt des Schachs!
Vereine & Veranstaltungen
Wer von deinen Freunden ist der Beste?
Lies, was andere Mitglieder sagen!
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.
Can a human player play like a chess engine?
von PatzerLars vor wenige Minuten
is this player better then Magnus
Chess.com getting sued for libel?
von jarjarbinksdude vor 3 Minuten
What is the lamest game or setup position you can think of.
von chessredpanda vor 4 Minuten
2013 World Youth
von shellymilly vor 5 Minuten
A nice ending...
von Glorfindel_1 vor 7 Minuten
The wild wild English
von Strange_Idiom vor 9 Minuten
Mixed human & engine tournaments
von waffllemaster vor 11 Minuten
Invent your own chess piece!
von ponystar1 vor 12 Minuten
CONTEST: Caption this Image of Anand & Carlsen
von builderboss126 vor 14 Minuten
Warum Mitglied werden? | Schachthemen |
Über uns |
Hilfe & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Schach - Deutsch
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!