Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 09:33:05 01/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2003 at 11:51:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 15, 2003 at 11:09:32, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > >>On January 14, 2003 at 20:47:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 14, 2003 at 19:47:21, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>>>I do not suggest exactly how to do it and it seems that the problem does not >>>>interest the ICC. >>> >>> >>>ICC is not interested. FIDE is not interested. USCF is not interested. In >>>fact, _no_ chess federation I know of does the initial rating differently than >>>what is done today. >> >> >>I told you already, FIDE does not do it in the same way. > >Have they changed this recently? My last official rules from FIDE used >the _same_ "provisional rating" formula that everyone else uses. The >classic win+400 + draw + lose-400 / N formula that ICC uses. > >So I guess I don't understand what you mean, assuming they _have_ changed >the way that they calculate _initial_ ratings. They did change (just checked) to make it more simple for players to check the rating by themselves. Check point 14.4, when they mention that doing a calculation differently will more accurate (game by game). http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=B0214 In another place, the danger of avegaring becomes obvious when it is suggested what kind of player should not be invited to a tournament. see point 10.68 "...F was a poor choice of player for the tournament. He dragged down the average rating too much. If a player rated 2380 or higher had replaced him, C would achieve a better rating even with one point less..." http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=B0210 [snip] >>>Can you spell "Elo"??? >> >>This is rather insulting. You are dealing with Uri and me like we are two >>schoolboys and you are not more qualified than any of us in this matter. I do >>not mind it if it comes with some content, but you are not even reading the >>messages. Uri pointed out a problem and you come with the >>"'I don't like that, fix it' is _not_ going to produce changes." >>What? it is not possible to post anymore something about something that you do >>not like? Before you find a solution, you have to identify a problem and discuss >>about it. Not to mention, suggestions were provided. >> >>Miguel > >It wasn't intended to be insulting. It was intended to point out that >what you are talking about is _exactly_ what the Elo system was designed to >do. > >Neither of you have produced any _reasonable_ approach to initially compute >a players rating. That seems to be all that is in debate here, as once the >provisional period is up, the Elo system seems to be accepted by all, even >with the minor "flaw" in the assumption of what K should be. But for the >provisional period I have seen _no_ suggestion that makes any sense yet. I You have not seen or you have not looked for? FIDE did it different as many other federations did in the past (I am sure about the Argentinian for instance). >have asked you in another post to simply make a precise formulation of an >algorithm that you think is better. I can then show you why it is not better I did a formulation that apparently you did not understand. In another post, Richard explained it again. Maybe that is clearer. Miguel
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.