Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:10:53 01/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 1999 at 17:47:08, James T. Walker wrote: >It seems to me that it's not what Arpad Elo said that matters. It's his formula >that counts. Since it is what determines the ratings it has to be true! Not >that there is no probability of error but that since the formula gives you the >rating based on the WE (Winning Expectancy) then the WE is correct by >definition. Of course because of statistical probability people or computers >will not always perform as per the WE. The point is that people and computers >get their ratings from the same formula. The only thing imperical data will do >is show that there is of course only probability not perfection. Maybe if you >could gather the statistics from millions of games the the actual data and the >probable data would be equal but don't bet the house on it. >Jim Walker His method *is* statistically valid. In fact, it has a sound mathematical basis. Of course, as with any mathematical model applied to concrete things (and especially people) it will not be a perfect predictor.
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.