Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:53:39 01/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2003 at 12:35:02, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:
>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
This is _not_ a "flaw".
For the first 20 games, you use a "provisional rating formula" and you can lose
points by winning if you play a much lower-rated player. USCF does this.
_everybody_ does it as you have to get an initial rating from somewhere.
Compute
your TPR for a tournament where you beat 4 2200 players in a row and see what
your rating is. Now play a 1200 player and beat _him_ and see what happens to
your
TPR even though you won. That is how a provisional rating is calculated.
>
>>
>>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.