Author: Graham Laight
Date: 02:13:17 01/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 04, 2000 at 18:37:12, Albert Silver wrote: >On January 04, 2000 at 18:19:18, Graham Laight wrote: > >>On January 04, 2000 at 13:17:14, Albert Silver wrote: >> >>>Why would doubling the speed make much of a difference in 40/2? It isn't >>>bullheaded, it's logical. So far I believe it is capable of PERFORMING at 2500 >>>against WEAKER opposition. I am not convinced it will perform the same against >>>Grandmasters. If it performs 2500 against 2300 players but 2300 against 2500 >>>players, it isn't playing at grandmaster strength. >>> > >> >>If the last sentence is possible then there's something seriously wrong with the >>Elo rating system. > >I not only believe it is possible, I think it's common. Just as the opposite is >common as well, though not among computers. > > Albert Silver If Albert is right, then there really is a serious problem with the Elo rating system. In a 10 game match between two 2500 players, the expected score would be 5-5. Between a 2300 player and a 2500 player, I think it should be about 2.5-7.5 (by all means correct me if I'm wrong). If, in a large statistical sample, this can be shown to not occur, then we must conclude that the Elo rating system does not work, and should be abandoned. Given that so many organisations have put so much faith in the Elo system, I suspect that it does have validity, and that Albert is not entirely correct in his belief. Does anyone out there know how well Professor Elo did his studies, and whether any follow up studies were done to check whether his rating system is correct? -g
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.