Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 09:35:02 01/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2003 at 10:55:38, Andrew Williams wrote:
>On January 14, 2003 at 10:43:20, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>
>>{Game 494 (MoveiXX vs. ACCIDENTE) ACCIDENTE resigns} 1-0
>>Blitz rating adjustment: 2635 --> 2602
>>
>>Movei won a game and lost rating.
>>
>>Uri
>
>It seems a bit strange when moveixx has played a total of *thirteen* games to
>declare that the rating system is "meaningless". What you have observed only
>occurs in the first few games. I've forgotten now how many games it requires
>before it settles down.
Uri is poiting out a flaw.
The point that happen when one is provisional does not make it less serious.
After 20 games you could end up with a very wrong rating, suppose that you
played all 1000 -1500 elo players and won all of them. Later, you will lots of
points from the rating pool causing deflation. Overall, I think that introduces
a lot of noise. However, considering all the mess regarding these ratings, this
point is not one of the worst.
Miguel
>
>If you want to argue in general that the rating system is meaningless, that is
>reasonable. I don't believe that the phenomenon you have observed is an example
>of the meaninglessness of the rating system.
>
>Andrew
This page took 0.01 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.