Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: why don't people understand that ratings are relative

Author: Anthony Cozzie

Date: 11:41:34 02/17/03

Go up one level in this thread


On February 16, 2003 at 22:47:18, John Jack wrote:

>How much greater would Bobby have been if he had access to the powerfull
>computers and software That we have Today (2950ELO)??. I have a issue of chess
>life early 70s they list his rating at 2810 (Front Cover)That was over 30 years
>ago. When There Was no computer for chess. (Just Books)
>
>
>
> John E Jack

the elo system has no defined 0.  results are only defined in terms of wins and
losses.  For example, suppose one defined the average elo to be 1600, and placed
Kramnik, Kasparov, and Shirov in a room together and had them play 5000 games.
Kasparov's rating would be 1650 at best.  Or we could define the 0 to be 0 -
Kasparov would have a rating of 1200, and some people would have negative
rating!  The whole thing is just like potential energy in physics: only
differences in the rating system are meaningful.

anthony



This page took 0.02 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.