Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 02:08:24 02/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2003 at 23:34:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 18, 2003 at 05:21:00, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On February 18, 2003 at 04:38:32, Alastair Scott wrote: >> >>>On February 17, 2003 at 14:41:34, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>> >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>Excellent explanation, and there is also the Flynn effect (such rating systems >>>tend to progressively inflate the numbers over time), which I believe has never >>>been explained. >> >>How do you know they inflate if you can't compare them? >> >>-S. >> > >One simple idea is to compare the "average" rating for the pool, over >time. IE the average "IQ" is not going up, so the average rating should >not go up since it is a relative measure among the pool members. If it does >go up, it has to be inflation since not _everybody_ is going to improve >steadily... > Perhaps, I think those that play chess today has an easier time getting a game going (via Internet or own programs), so it is possible that they improve faster than 20 years ago where the only option was to play once a week down in the local club. -S.
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.