Author: KarinsDad
Date: 15:43:49 01/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 1999 at 18:10:53, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. Not even with an extremely large sample set. KarinsDad
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.