Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:33:26 07/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2003 at 05:14:06, Sune Fischer wrote: >On July 14, 2003 at 00:00:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>If you let a new, strong player start at the top, he can establish a higher >>rating than if he started at the bottom and stumbled a few times, all the while >>dragging everyone's rating above him downward, rather than just jumping on the >>top few and leaping over them. >> > >Yes, but only because the Elo formula is flawed! I don't think it is _flawed_ at all. It does its job pretty well. The only problem is that the number (rating) is not an absolute measure of strength, it is simply relative to the current players in the population. > >If the formula was working accurately it wouldn't matter where he played, he >should end up getting the same 2800 rating whether he played 2100 opponents or >2750 opponents. NO, and that is a basic misunderstanding. In the Elo system, X and Y (those being rating numbers) are _meaningless. X-Y is the only thing that carries any information content. IE the relative difference, not the absolute number. Elo _never_ claimed that the absolute rating of a player meant anything, it is only useful when compared to another rating to predict the outcome between those two players. > >It seems to me you want to subject him to a flawed formula by pitting him >against lower rated playes so he gets a deflated rating, I don't think that is a >good idea. I simply suggested a way to prevent ratings of 3200 in a couple of years. Because so many want the absolute rating to mean something when it doesn't. > > >>>There is no need for everyone to play everyone for the system to work. >>>What is required is for one single entry to be able to *affect* the ratings in >>>the entire pool, but head to head matches against all is not the only way to do >>>this. >> >>I don't mean to imply it is necessary for everyone to play. But in the case >>of the SSDF, the _bottom_ players are not playing. That seems to be >>problematic. > >Indeed, the whole group must remain active. > >>>For instance you don't see Kasparov beating up a lot of FMs, that doesn't mean >>>his rating is wrong or that the FIDE scale is broken. As a matter of fact it >>>would probably be broken if he did, because the formula is less accurate in >>>these cases, as we started out agreeing on. >> >>No, but the next player that beats up on Kasparov is not going to start with >>him. He's going to start on the bottom and work his way up the chain until >>he gets to Kasparov, probably dragging _everyone's_ rating down just a bit. > >Well in reality people are not born with a 2700 rating, their rating is probably >never far off equilibrium, even though it climbs fast. > >-S.
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.