Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 18:20:36 10/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2001 at 21:07:18, Derrick Daniels wrote: >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? I think that they should post the error bars for players like the SSDF does. > From the posts I have read from You, there are never >enough games or data, whatever human or computer to get a reliable estimate, Depends on what you mean by reliable. I think that if you have +/- 25 ELO within one standard deviation, that's a pretty darn good estimate. The SSDF gets numbers in this range, and towards the end of a GM's career, the FIDE data would produce similar values. > why >don't you just make the blanket statement that No ratings Period can be >Accurately Measured. >>;-) I don't like blanket statements. Wait a minute -- that's a blanket statement! So I don't like it. ;-)
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.