Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:28:03 01/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2003 at 15:56:04, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:
>On January 14, 2003 at 14:53:39, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>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".
>
>It is not a flaw, it is a major screw up considering how uneven is the
>population of players in ICC.
It isn't a flaw, nor a major screw-up. How about giving some good algorithm
to develop an approximate rating for a new player?
BTW you do know that just because a new player's rating fluctuates wildly,
his opponents do _not_ get all those points added or subtracted from _their_
ratings?
>
>It is based on an approximation. Every approximation works between certain
>boundaries.
>
>>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.
>
>USCF does that, that one of the reason why initial ratings in many cases are
>horrible and there were many cases of cheating because of this. For instance,
>kids that play only against 2000 rated people and their initial rating is 1600.
What else would you propose? There is no solution. Criticizing the _only_
solution
makes little sense IMHO.
>
>That is one of the reasons why when I started to play in US, my initial rating
>was way below the one that I should have had (personally I do not give a damn)
>because I played tournaments in the area against nobody. That is also the reason
>why Anatoly Karpov was rated (maybe still is) 2500 in USA. Ridiculous.
You do realize that your rating reflects your results in a rating pool? Once
again
you are using a local rating to compare with ratings from other pools. It is
statistically invalid to do this.
>
>Miguel
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.