EPThttp://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/players/detailed-elo
I've been wishing to add that for a long time, and Hot_Bid wanted it bad, so here it is.
Once again, suggestions/comments/criticisms are welcome.
[TLPD] Detailed players' ELO
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
PoP
France15446 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/players/detailed-elo I've been wishing to add that for a long time, and Hot_Bid wanted it bad, so here it is. Once again, suggestions/comments/criticisms are welcome.
| ||
Aesop
Hungary11305 Posts
1996 - 2072 - 2190 | ||
|
PoP
France15446 Posts
 Some elo-peak stats: TvT:  NaDa (2206), Sea (2204), XellOs (2201)TvZ: iloveoov (2309), NaDa (2255), Sea (2232)TvP: iloveoov (2234), Midas (2219), NaDa (2211)ZvT:  sAviOr (2215), Jaedong (2211), July/GoRush (2210)ZvZ: Jaedong (2275), Luxury (2210), ChoJJa (2197)ZvP: sAviOr (2270), July (2206), Jaedong (2204)PvT:  Stork (2239), rA (2204), Reach (2187)PvZ: rA (2217), Bisu (2202), Anytime (2174)PvP: BeSt (2247), Stork (2197), Reach (2191) | ||
|
freelander
Hungary4707 Posts
| ||
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
| ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
Also wtf sea atlest yellow and stork are known as silver people but you had peaked top terran mu strange you aren't know for more. | ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
| ||
|
beetlelisk
Poland2276 Posts
Poll: Can you only say THIS IS AWESOME? (Vote): YES (Vote): No, because... | ||
|
PoP
France15446 Posts
On November 03 2008 03:08 Dazed_Spy wrote: When ever I go to protoss/zerg only, it automatically goes back to Terran only a second later. hm weird, seems OK for me can you describe what happens exactly? like you pick "Protoss only" and then it works for a few secs and switchs back?? | ||
|
PoP
France15446 Posts
On November 03 2008 03:07 IzzyCraft wrote: =( savior doesn't have the highest peak kinda sad now. Also great job makes liquid bets less meeh work. 1 small thing is that when i click on a stat like vT it shows the lest first till i click again. I'm pretty sure most people want the best on that first click not the worst. You can change it if it's nothing work else just leave it 2 clicks isn't bad. Yeah I'm aware of that I'll try to fix it, you're right. | ||
|
Jusciax
Lithuania588 Posts
| ||
|
Senx
Sweden5901 Posts
So now we have it in stats - Flash is the most dominant player to ever play starcraft (all Mu's peak), is that correct? or am i reading it wrong? What does ELO mean? | ||
|
PoP
France15446 Posts
On November 03 2008 03:20 Senx wrote: Damn nice! So now we have it in stats - Flash is the most dominant player to ever play starcraft (all Mu's peak), is that correct? or am i reading it wrong? Global ELO has been available for a while, and yeah Flash has the highest peak. He was pretty much invincible a few months ago and topped iloveoov by a slight margin. (Btw it didn't last long enough so I still myself consider oov the most dominant ever, but on that specific span of time Flash was just godly). What does ELO mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
| ||
|
Pulimuli
Sweden2766 Posts
| ||
|
0z
Luxembourg877 Posts
edit: considering how the matchup is generally regarded as a coin-toss (rock paper scissors, etc.) | ||
|
Senx
Sweden5901 Posts
Or wait it seems like its alphabetic order > ranks atm | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
but when you click on a new category to sort by it, could you have it first switch to descending order? right now the first time you click it, it gives you a lot of no name players with no stats, and I doubt anyone wants to see that compared to the top players. | ||
Daigomi
South Africa4316 Posts
| ||
|
PoP
France15446 Posts
On November 03 2008 03:34 Pulimuli wrote: just for shits and giggles: NaDas old ELO peak was 2533 ? On November 03 2008 03:36 0z wrote: Funny how that the most imbalanced situation in the history of the game was prime Jaedong vs zerg! You mean after oov's TvZ? fusionsdf > yeah see my reply above. I'll fix that soon. | ||
|
0z
Luxembourg877 Posts
oops, yeah, still its pretty impressive | ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
| ||
|
MuShu
United States3223 Posts
| ||
|
Ideas
United States8173 Posts
| ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
| ||
|
DownMaxX
Canada1311 Posts
| ||
GHOSTCLAW
United States17042 Posts
| ||
|
GHOSTCLAW
United States17042 Posts
On November 03 2008 03:45 Railz wrote: It does my heart good to see a list where oov is still topping. *cross your fingers* and wait for him to come back. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
| ||
|
antiq
Slovakia191 Posts
sAviOr still has a higher peak than BeSt versus P, he was a beast alright. Nifty feature, once you PoP, you can't stop! | ||
|
GHOSTCLAW
United States17042 Posts
On November 03 2008 03:30 PoP wrote: Global ELO has been available for a while, and yeah Flash has the highest peak. He was pretty much invincible a few months ago and topped iloveoov by a slight margin. (Btw it didn't last long enough so I still myself consider oov the most dominant ever, but on that specific span of time Flash was just godly). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system Do they use the strict version of elo, or the FIDE modified one that chess uses? Actually after reading the article, ELO really is just a set of ideas on how to calculate the score. So I guess the more accurate question is: What implementation of ELO do they use to calculate the score? As far as I know, there's the FIDE, as well as the USCF... | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
<3 PoP | ||
|
FreeDoM[YA]
Canada855 Posts
| ||
|
Raithed
China7078 Posts
| ||
|
MasterReY
Germany2708 Posts
| ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
On November 03 2008 03:10 PoP wrote: Yeah thats exactly what happened. Clicked it off and reloaded it and it worked fine.hm weird, seems OK for me can you describe what happens exactly? like you pick "Protoss only" and then it works for a few secs and switchs back?? | ||
iamke55
United States2806 Posts
| ||
|
Avidkeystamper
United States8556 Posts
| ||
|
foeffa
Belgium2115 Posts
| ||
|
kramus
United States1259 Posts
| ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36401 Posts
On November 03 2008 05:30 Avidkeystamper wrote: Oh yea, I only see Jaedong with a peak of 2200 in all three matchups, but I didn't check oov... Xellos, Nada, and Jaedong appear to be the only three players with 2200+ peaks in each of their MUs. | ||
|
CDRdude
United States5625 Posts
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 Hot_Bid: Are you sure? I see Xellos' TvP peak as less than 2200. Sea was really close to getting all 3 over 2200 though. 6 points away in TvP. | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36401 Posts
| ||
|
ketomai
United States2789 Posts
| ||
|
Djabanete
United States2786 Posts
On November 03 2008 03:45 Railz wrote: It does my heart good to see a list where oov is still topping. Top Ten Tallest Progamers: 1. Oov 2-10. Other progamers | ||
|
IPS.ZeRo
Germany1142 Posts
i love statistics TLPD will soon take over the world :D | ||
|
clazziquai
6685 Posts
Your work is always appreciated!Love TLPD <3 | ||
cgrinker
United States3824 Posts
| ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
| ||
|
AttackZerg
United States7581 Posts
once again you fucking rock. Hot_bid thanks for your wanting this into existance. TL.net thanks again for these great features! | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
| ||
|
Bwenjarin Raffrack
United States322 Posts
And now for something a little less constructive, everyone's favorite game: Adventures in Pedantry. "Elo is often written in capital letters (ELO), but it is not an acronym. It is the family name of the system's creator, Arpad Elo, a Hungarian-born American physics professor." Doesn't matter any, just wanted to give the guy a shout-out. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
Great work! | ||
|
gravity
Australia2198 Posts
edit: Although, now that I think about it, it might make more sense to have columns by matchup rather than by vs. X. Then again I guess the problem with this is that there would be 6 columns with 3 blank for each player, so maybe not. edit2: Oh yeah, and it would be nice if the players' ratings were also included on their individual player page (either on the first tab or the "record and games" tab). edit3: I also want to say that for something being made by volunteers (I assume), TLPD is amazingly detailed and professional. The only thing I know of of similar quality is the chessgames.com database, and even that isn't presented quite as nicely as TLPD. | ||
|
Athos
United States2484 Posts
| ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 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? =p Well there are inflation and deflation in elo 2200 one year can mean a totally diff skill of 2200 in another year. My question is whos peak had the biggest gap from player 1 to 2 to 3 top 3 players of their year. I would think savior's elo peak would have the biggest gap just from his dominance was clear or nada maybe oov. | ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14912 Posts
| ||
|
randombum
United States2378 Posts
| ||
|
Malongo
Chile3472 Posts
| ||
|
gravity
Australia2198 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? You can't compare them like that because the actual rating values are arbitrary - only the difference between two players' rating matters. ie, the difference in skill between a 2400 player and a 2000 player is the same as the difference between a 1000 player a 600 player. You could have the starting rating be 0 instead of 2000 and it wouldn't make any difference. I just chose 2000 because it looks good :p. Well actually, I also chose 2000 because I guessed that an average pro would be about the level of a chess "expert" (2000ish) rated player, given that the game hasn't been around as long and doesn't have as much competition. So, I guess chess and starcraft ratings are comparable, but only to the extent that my guess was actually right. Top rated chess players can have ratings up to around 2800, by the way (my rating is like 1100, lol). | ||
Chill
Calgary26003 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 States3019 Posts
| ||
|
gravity
Australia2198 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
Australia2198 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). | ||
| ||
