Author: Derrick Daniels
Date: 18:07:18 10/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2001 at 20:59:40, Dann Corbit wrote: >On October 24, 2001 at 19:45:45, Christophe Theron wrote: >>On October 24, 2001 at 02:20:26, Kevin Stafford wrote: >>>> >>>>I also would not go so far as to say that comparisons are meaningless -- just >>>>that the numerical value connections are unknown. >>> >>>Yes, but is there any way to determine what the connection is without playing a >>>fairly large set of new games between members of each pool? If so, it would seem >>>to me that at present comparisons are indeed 'meaningless'. If there is a >>>statistical way to determine this without new games being played, then I'm of >>>course wrong. >>> >>>> >>>>An entity that is at the top of either list will be quite strong, and one at the >>>>bottom not so strong -- that much is obvious. >>>> >>> >>>Well of course! I wouldn't say this constitutes a comparison as the original >>>poster meant it though. >>> >>>-Kevin >> >>I'm not sure if it works mathematically, but I think it would be enough to >>adjust the list at both ends (that is, adjust the rating of the best and the >>worse entity listed by the SSDF to human ratings) to get accurate ratings for >>the whole list. > >It works pragmatically, but mathematically, you would have very large error >bars. In order to reduce the error levels to an acceptable level (say -- 50 >ELO) you would have to play thousands of games across the pools. Playing just >the top and bottom entrants would also not be the most effective way to get an >accurate answer. Better to spread them out. I think practically speaking that >playing the extremes is a bad idea too. Imagine trying to find out how good you >are by playing 50 games against Garry Kasparov, and then against a random >legal-move generator. > >0-50 followed by 50-0 > >What did you learn? Your ELO is somewhere between 3000 and 0, +/- 500 ELO. > >You get a lot more information content by playing against a large cross section >of opponents. I suspect (but I have not tested this assumption mathematically) >that you get a maximum extraction of information by playing against opponents >100 ELO better than you and then opponents 100 ELO below you. If they are at >exactly your level, there is too much randomness in the results. If they are >vastly superior or inferior, it takes too many games to see the difference, and >if you should accidentally win or lose one more than you are supposed to, it >will clobber the estimate. I wonder Mr. Corbit if you believe the Present Elo System used by Fide is Mathematically Correct? From the posts I have read from You, there are never enough games or data, whatever human or computer to get a reliable estimate, why don't you just make the blanket statement that No ratings Period can be Accurately Measured. >;-)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.