Unfortunately, all such efforts are limited by their central assumption - that skill is orderable.<p>This is demonstrably untrue - skill at chess (to use their example) occurs on several axes, the most obvious of which are opening theory, tactics, and positional play. Players may excel only in certain regions of that space, and it's quite easy to set up a player cycle A->B->C->A, in which each player is more likely to win against one player and lose against another. A players observed 'skill' therefore will depend on any biases in the population at large rather heavily (at the lower levels of chess, the population has overwhelmingly studied opening theory and some tactics)<p>Because of their non-dimensionality, skill ranking algorithms are universally limited to expressing how likely one is to win against an <i>average</i> person of a given skill ranking, rather than the likely outcome of the match about to be played. Sports match prediction techniques are all domain-specific, precisely for this reason (and because substantial sums of money are riding on their predictive effectiveness).
This is pretty interesting, though there's a <i>lot</i> of introductory exposition for people already familiar with statistics and rating systems (no doubt a good thing for people who aren't, and it's well-written). The takeaway for "how is this different from Elo?" appears to be this part:<p><i>The TrueSkill algorithm generalizes Elo by keeping track of two variables: your average (mean) skill and the system’s uncertainty about that estimate (your standard deviation).</i><p>which in Elo terms translates to basically having a non-fixed K. Since that's also the goal of the Glicko rating system (an already-used extension to Elo), I was curious if this article would compare them. It doesn't, but their FAQ does (result: there are minor technical differences, but the big difference is that TrueSkill handles games other than 2-player games): <a href="http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/trueskill/faq.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/trueskill/faq.a...</a><p>Some additional Google-Scholaring turns up that there are some extensions to that as well, notably one that computes the Bayesian estimate using the whole history, instead of incremental updates: <a href="http://halofit.org/papers/WHR.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://halofit.org/papers/WHR.pdf</a>
Only ever implement trueskill as a hidden metric; after a sufficiently high number of games, the level of uncertainty drops and your players get 'locked in' to a certain rank and, while this is great for actually tracking skill, it gives the end user a feeling of helplessness. People prefer seeing a volatile and perhaps inaccurate skill that they can feasibly change to an extremely accurate one which is frustrating to move. Taken from experience as a Halo player (H2 used a points system kind of like regular elo, H3 used Microsoft's trueskill).
Here is his next article where he discusses porting his C# code for this to PHP, and his views on PHP in general, from the view of a C# coder: <a href="http://www.moserware.com/2010/10/notes-from-porting-c-code-to-php.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.moserware.com/2010/10/notes-from-porting-c-code-t...</a>
Jeff Moser's blog is full of good articles, I revisit it from time to time hoping he's posted something new, but I think he's been too busy these passed few years.<p>One of the most accessible and interesting is his HTTPS breakdown[1]—highly recommended, and I'm sure it's been HN'd more than once.<p>[1]: <a href="http://www.moserware.com/2009/06/first-few-milliseconds-of-https.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.moserware.com/2009/06/first-few-milliseconds-of-h...</a>
Didn't have much time reading through out the whole article and beyond the analysis of the subject it self, i really enjoyed the way the article was written. Giving the ground on theory and mathematics behind the problem in a way that anyone could understand. Thumbs up for authors writing/educational skills.