EPT[TLPD] Detailed players' ELO - Page 4
| Forum Index > BW General |
Chill
Calgary25986 Posts
| ||
|
Matoo-
Canada1397 Posts
On November 03 2008 06:13 CDRdude wrote: This little detail is actually incredibly awesome.edit: Holy shit, I just noticed that when you mouse over an ELO peak, it tells you what the peak game was! That's a really nice touch  | ||
|
fanofbest
United States145 Posts
PS: Great Job .Thank you :-D | ||
|
iamke55
United States2806 Posts
On November 03 2008 12:06 Athos wrote: I'm wondering how Starcraft players ELO's compare to top chess players. Does anybody break the 2400 boundary in any sport? I think Federer got to 2700 a couple years ago. If you take Boxer's micro, flash's strategic genius, jaedong's mechanics, and oov's ability to never lose a game, add them together and multiply it by 3, you get Federer in tennis at his peak. | ||
|
Kong John
Denmark1020 Posts
Btw really great idea! | ||
|
geno
United States1404 Posts
But damn, TLPD is so good its hard to ask for more. I honestly don't know how I would follow SC anymore if TLPD disappeared (even though I did for a little bit before its birth!) | ||
|
fw
Korea (South)1201 Posts
i think it's more convenient to set the default of sort to descending oder. (when clicking column titles) currently i had to click twice to see who is on top. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On November 03 2008 20:28 fw wrote: yea i agree!geat job. thank you! i think it's more convenient to set the default of sort to descending oder. (when clicking column titles) currently i had to click twice to see who is on top. | ||
|
darktreb
United States3016 Posts
| ||
|
gravity
Australia1988 Posts
On November 03 2008 20:40 darktreb wrote: Really interesting how Flash's individual peaks aren't actually that high considering how high is overall was.... I guess he must have been near peak in all his matchups at about the same time. | ||
|
PoP
France15446 Posts
| ||
|
fw
Korea (South)1201 Posts
On November 03 2008 22:02 PoP wrote: I just fixed the sorting issue. All numeric columns will now be sorted in descending order by default (when you click them the first time). thanks for the fix. i guess retired players never get an (current) ELO and are always listed at end, right? so how about add a tick mark "Use peak ELO instead for retired players" it will make it easy to compare the current standings with retired dominant players in their prime. | ||
|
samachking
Bahrain4949 Posts
On November 03 2008 12:06 Athos wrote: I'm wondering how Starcraft players ELO's compare to top chess players. Does anybody break the 2400 boundary in any sport? Garry Kasperov, the best chess player of all time has an ELO of 2851. The highest ELO peak in Starcraft so far is 2336 by flash. Just to see how dominant Kasperov was. | ||
|
gravity
Australia1988 Posts
On November 03 2008 23:15 samachking wrote: Garry Kasperov, the best chess player of all time has an ELO of 2851. The highest ELO peak in Starcraft so far is 2336 by flash. Just to see how dominant Kasperov was. As I mentioned in a post that got hidden at the bottom of the previous page, you can't compare them like this because only differences between elos matter, not absolute values. You could add 1000 points to every Starcraft player's elo and they would be exactly as accurate as they are now, but the top would be 3336. Likewise, you could subtract 1 million points and it wouldn't make any difference (elo works fine with negative numbers), it would just be ugly/hard to read. The base level of 2000 is completely arbitrary and was only chosen to produce nice-looking numbers*. It could have easily been 0, in which case Flash would have a peak of 336, etc. The only way to compare between chess and Starcraft based on ratings is to look at the difference between the best players and the "worst" players for each game, and see which has the bigger gap. The problem with this is that the Starcraft ratings only apply to pros and not random b.net pub players (unlike chess ratings which go all the way down to primary school kids), and it's hard to come up with a good definition of "worst" player (I mean, obviously a rock or a cat or whatever is the worst "player", but that produces silly results - we need some definition of "worst" that still counts as a proper player). *The other reasons were to a.) have numbers vaguely similar to chess and other rating systems (though unfortunately this seems to have confused people a bit as evidenced by the above) and b.) to ensure that in the unlikely event of the system being extended to non-pro players, even very bad players would still have non-negative ratings. (Again, this isn't necessary at all, it just looks nicer). | ||
| ||
