Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:00:32 01/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2003 at 12:20:14, Uri Blass wrote: >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. >> >> >>> >>> >>>>You are taking a rating as an absolute value. It is _not_. It is an >>>>estimate of how you would do against the group (pool) of players you compete >>>>in. The current TPR approach is _exact_ in that regard. Even if it has >>>>nothing to do with how you would do against other players. I have _yet_ to >>>>see anyone suggest an alternative. Just complaints about how it is done now. >>>> >>>>Without suggestions on a better way, complaints are not very useful... >>>> >>>>"I don't like that, fix it" is _not_ going to produce changes. >>> >>> >>>Please read my other message. First, you posted "I am waiting a real >>>suggestion". I did (in two messages), you ignored them. Uri mention another >>>possibility. >>> >>> >>>>>If ICC cares about creating a better rating system >>>>>They can give give 10000$ for the people who find the best rating system. >>>> >>>>I believe Elo did that a _long_ time back. It has certainly stood the >>>>"test of time". >>> >>>The theory yes, but the implementation is far from perfect and many people >>>suggested improvements, including Glickman and K. Thompson. >> >>You realize why the glickman system was developed? The Elo system had >>some basic assumptions, one of which was that active players might play one >>event per month. That means their rating should change more quickly than >>what is happening today where on a chess server, a person can play 20 games >>in a single day. The Glickman formula slows your rating change as you play >>more games over a short period of time. IE on ICC Crafty's rating can change >>+/-200 in a single afternoon as a loss to a player rated 300-400 points lower >>will cost it 32 rating points in one game. In the glicko system, that 32 points >>would be more like 1-2 points if it had been playing lots of games every day. >> >>Elo wasn't wrong. But his assumptions are not always reasonable in a >>world connected via the internet. But for _either_ rating system, the >>initial rating is calculated the same way because no better way has been >>found. >> >> >> >>> >>>>>It seems that they do not care so they will not do it. >>>>> >>>>>I have also definition that we can compare based on it different rating systems. >>>>>A rating system should give the expected result in every game. >>>>>It is easy to use the sum of squares to find the practical error and the rating >>>>>system that gives the smallest error is the most logical rating to choose. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>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 >>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 >>the current simple TPR average that everyone I can find is using, FIDE >>included according to a web search a few minutes ago. > >Here is a simple algorithm that is better and I think it was suggested by >migual. > >1)If the player has only wins or only losses do not give the player rating. Bad idea. Strong player at a university could win every tournament game he plays there. He gets _no_ rating??? >2)If the player has not only wins or only losses decide to do the following >steps(note that this is not the fastest way but I care only to make the way >clear and not to do it fast). > >a)Guess a rating that for the player based on results >b)calculate for every game the expected result based on the rating(the elo gives >expected result for every difference of rating) >c)You will find that the result is too low or too high >d)if the result is too high reduce the rating by 1/2 and repeat the process >until you find that the rating is too low. >e)if the rating is too low increase the rating by 1/2 and repeat the process >until you find that the rating is too high. >f)You will get 2 numbers with difference 1/2 and the rating is between them and you will get a number that is _very_ close to the TPR number if you measure it over 20 games. That is the point.. > >Uri
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.