Talk:Elo rating system

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elo rating system article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 3 months

Chess Top‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Board and table games Mid‑importance

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elo in Snooker??

In the introduction it is claimed that the elo rating system is used as a rating system in snooker (amongst others). I have removed that until someone can provide a source for that. For me it's just plain wrong. The Snooker World Rankings are based on the prize money won within the last 2 years ("Rankings FAQ - WPBSA".), i.e. where your rating is based on how far you've come in tournaments, and not on the outcome of individual games and the rating of the opponent.

Use Outside of Chess - Other board and card games - Elo in Poker

While not a universal metric for poker, GGPoker has incorporated an Elo rating system into one of its Sit & Go online poker formats, ‘Spin & Gold ELO’, where player ratings are determined by win rate. Players are then awarded a letter score based on that rating, with E at the low end of 1200, A at 4000+, Master at 5000+ and Grand Master if they rank within the top 100 players. While the Elo ratings of each player affect how many points are gained or lost, they do not affect match-making.

https://www.pokerlistings.com/rise-up-the-spin-gold-elo-ranking-system-at-ggpoker

https://donkhunter.com/en/news/ggpoker-introduces-spin-gold-elo-ranking-syste,1033.html

https://www.ggpoker.com/poker-games/spin-gold-elo/ Chris H (GGPoker) (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page is too chess-centric

This is a generic rating system used in many games and sports. I think a lot of this page should be moved to a new page called "Usage of the Elo rating system in Chess", or, at the very least, should be moved under a chapter with a title to that effect.

Particularly, under "Different ratings systems" (a bit of a strange title in the first place) we seem to be outlining various use cases of the system in chess and chess only.

Overall, we seem to be describing things with chess in mind, e.g. mentioning chess titles like GM, IM and organizations like FIDE, USCF etc fairly often, in places where it's not necessary.

The result is that this page would be somewhat frustrating to read for someone who wants to learn about the Elo rating system but who does not know chess. 85.146.96.60 (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Elo system was specifically designed for chess, so it is appropriate to discuss it in terms of the various implementations by different chess bodies. I know various on line games have a version of the Elo system but I'm not aware of any other major international sporting bodies adopting it. Besides you don't need to play chess to understand the mathematics of the system. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Suggested modification" section is misleading

I believe the section Suggested modification, proposing 480 as a better rating difference divisor, is misleading. Any number should leave the underlying mathematics the same, resulting just in rescaled ratings. It is my understanding that the issue in the referenced article by Jeff Sonas arises only in the presence of the 400 points maximum difference cutoff, as is presented in the article. This cutoff is not integral to the Elo rating, it is not discussed elsewhere in the Wiki article and without it the whole system should just converge to slightly less spread values on its own.

If I am correct, the whole paragraph can be removed without loss. If I am wrong, perhaps it can be enhanced to prevent future readers from following my line of reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.28.83.193 (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since that section was added, I have been wondering what happened to Sonas's ideas since his article was published, in 2011. If FIDE responded to his logic by either taking his suggestion, or by making some other change, then we should acknowledge that, citing some appropriate source. Otherwise, the whole discussion is something like WP:OR from our point of view, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I don't know where to look to find out about changes to FIDE's rating calculations over the years. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use Outside of Chess - Other board and card games

I'm surprised that [1]Board Game Arena's use of (some variant of) this system isn't mentioned. Maybe someone could add it, if that's useful? 50.227.112.182 (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Game playing sites are here today, gone tomorrow. Look at Wikipedia's definition of reliable source, then see if you can find significant coverage of BGA or its use of Elo ratings in such a source. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elo (normal distribution) vs Zermelo (logistic) Rating system in the "Theory" Section

It is my understanding that the mathematical model described in the "Mathematical Details" section is not the model actually proposed by Elo. It is instead the model which is actually used (which is the model written about first by Zermelo). This is hinted at lower down in "Most accurate distribution model," but it isn't actually said that this is the model being described. You'd have to know that the described model is a logistic distribution model, which is not obvious to those not familiar with the subject. Shouldn't this be said outright and before diving into the math? As it is, readers are mislead by what system is being described. I do agree that the logistic distribution is the one worth describing, as it is what is used today.

Another, larger, improvement that I think would be possible would be to go as in depth in Elo's system, as that's literally the name of the article and some readers may actually be looking for his system, rather than the one that replaced it, even if the common name doesn't refer to it anymore.

This is a more major of a change to the article structure and content than I have the time (or experience) to do at all right now. I would also like to know if I'm making an obvious misconception here before I put any large amount of time into it. Nebman227 (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you think there should be clarifying discussion about the choice of distribution, especially before we get to the math, then I recommend that you make the edits that you think won't be controversial. If some edits might be controversial then you could discuss the details here. But, no, I don't think that the general idea is controversial; go for it.

I'd like the article's emphasis to be on what the name means today. However, the historical meaning is also plenty relevant ... perhaps in a section that is named "History" or something that conveys that idea. —

Q

uantling (talk | contribs) 14:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]