Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 15:09:35 01/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2003 at 16:28:03, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>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?
There are many options to do it. For instance, you do not need to approximate.
It is quite silly in the era of the computers to use paper and pencil
approximations that Dr. Elo _had_ to do decades ago.
>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.
What makes you think that this is the only solution?
There are many rating systems around!
Even the simple solution proposed by Uri deserves consideration: not to take
into account games were the average elo of A is >400 points than B.
The one I could propose is you take the pool of players that you played and
calculate what is the Elo that would give you the same amount of points that you
obtained, doing the calculation "game by game", not by a crude average. For
that, you need to iterate and that is the reason why most probably was never
used at the beginning.
Lots of things can be done.
>>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.
You are assuming, that I compared my elo somewhere else with the elo that I got
in USCF and I was not happy. No, I compared the elo that I got with the elo of
other people who played worse than me here in US. It took me a _long_ time until
that was reversed and still my elo did not reach a balance. Partially, because
it is difficult to increase you elo fast when you play opposition that is weaker
than you.
Besides, if I did the comparison USCF ratings are slightly overrated compared to
FIDE so even if I did, I was not wrong. I was really tired of listening to my
opponents saying: Are you really 2050?
Karpov 2596? Come on!!! He played the US Amateur and beat a couple of players
with a very low rating and that was the result. Yes, 6 games, but he won all of
them.
http://www.64.com/uscf/ratings/12730227
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.