It seems strange that for a game as complex and multifaceted as Chess, the scoring system boils down to who has the highest "number", without any 'measures' (that I'm aware of) given to each chess player's many skills, strengths or even weaknesses - across various Chess scenarios. Do any rating systems out there provide a more nuanced representation of the specific strengths / weaknesses of Chess players - and where they have improved or declined. This would be especially interesting for the "top players" and would give those who follow them a deeper, and more readily available insight into their various chess skills.
PS - (edit) apologies for the 'title' of this post - which I cannot seem to edit. My 'question' was initially intended to be which system is the most accurate, but turned out to be more whether there could be a more insightful, richer, multi-faced rating system rather than those that boil down to who has the highest number.
Well, chess is fundamentally a contest. So I say the highest number is pretty important.
For instance BayesELo would give more accurate number with quicker adaptation. As of this multifaceted skill thingy: If your brilliant rook endgame handling does not turn into wins whats the use of it?
Obviously such information is important in order to improve and thats why there things like coaching. Where coach analyses your games to find the issues. But how would you automate this? Not really doable.
id automate it by hooking up a shock collar and every time mistake blunder or inaccuracy it will shock you the voltage varies depending on how huge the error is ... and you'd expect after a while you'd stop making errors but no no no... this is where you hook it up to study positions like openings , endgames and shock yourself into excellence if you want more buy my new ebook
chess zaps n traps
Lichess automated this already with its "Insights" function. Check it out!
The game itself boils down to three results.
The rating system reflects this and should not be regarded as a measure of the skills, but as a tool to predict the result between two players.
#1
"Do any rating systems out there provide a more nuanced representation of the specific strengths / weaknesses of Chess players - and where they have improved or declined. This would be especially interesting for the "top players" and would give those who follow them a deeper, and more readily available insight into their various chess skills."
What top players do when they prepare for a match e.g. for the World Championship is they analyse all of their opponent's games, looking for weaknesses in his play. Then they devise a match strategy to create such situations so as to prey on these.
