| General Chess Discussion - x100 peaks on the ratings distribution graph continued...#14 @griffindabeast said in #9: > @Jimothy-Jangles I try to bring up my ratings 100 at a time and I won’t touch them untill I bring up the other ratings. I would like to maybe get 2000 in all variants and… | Jimothy-Jangles  |
| General Chess Discussion - x100 peaks on the ratings distribution graph continued...#13 @mkubecek said in #11: > I'm giving up, I really prefer a simple, logical and consistent explanation over artificial hypotheses which can be easily proven wrong by reading about the algorithms and ins… | Jimothy-Jangles |
| General Chess Discussion - x100 peaks on the ratings distribution graph continued...#12 @mkubecek said in #7: > Some people insist that using these graphs with straight line segments connecting points representing discrete values (or summed over intervals) are Bad ThingTM and that bar gr… | Jimothy-Jangles |
| General Chess Discussion - x100 peaks on the ratings distribution graph continued...#10 @mkubecek said in #5: > Sigh... You still haven't noticed (even if someone already pointed this out in previous discussions, IIRC) that these graphs have a granularity of 25 so that your "exactly a mu… | Jimothy-Jangles |
| General Chess Discussion - x100 peaks on the ratings distribution graph continued...#8 @Panagrellus said in #6: > Well indeed, it doesn't make sense. The obvious explanation is that many players "rest" at the full 100 peaks, and the data in the Lichess graphs being sorted in bins of siz… | Jimothy-Jangles |
| General Chess Discussion - x100 peaks on the ratings distribution graph continued...#3 @MartinPlath said in #2: > I wish I could insert a "rolls eyes" gif here. oh for goodness sake. Just cos loads of people say one thing, doesn;t make it correct. If it's not hearsay that this curiosity… | Jimothy-Jangles |
| General Chess Discussion - x100 peaks on the ratings distribution graph continued...#1 thought I'd continue this topic as it got closed but wasn't resolved. some interesting chat I had about it after on someone's direct messages, but not forum. RE: peaks at every 100 mark on the graph (… | Jimothy-Jangles |
| General Chess Discussion - ratings stats distribution graph glitch?#13 @kajalmaya said in #10: > It is clear that many people giving opinions here have no idea of statistics, mathematics or computing. Hence I don't have to make them understand either. You don't see such … | Jimothy-Jangles |
| General Chess Discussion - ratings stats distribution graph glitch?#12 does anyone know why we see these spikes at EXACTLY the 100 marks then (and the more pronounced decline directly before). Is the matching algorithm truly random, or is there some sort of bias - eg bei… | Jimothy-Jangles |
| General Chess Discussion - ratings stats distribution graph glitch?#3 @nadjarostowa said in #2: > The thing that's flawed here is the human mind. It likes round numbers. > > You don't stop playing at 1698, you play on until you break that 1700 barrier. So that's where y… | Jimothy-Jangles |
| Next |
|---|