Author: O. Veli
Date: 00:11:31 01/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 2000 at 06:10:07, blass uri wrote: >3)The rating is also not perfect in predicting the playing strength of humans. >Suppose an 1600 player based on previous topurnaments train some years against >computers without playing in tournaments and after many years of training go >back to tournaments and gets performance of 2600 in 9 games(including draws and >wins against GM's). > >It is logical to assume that he deserves more than 2200 but >the rating system is not going to give this player even 2000. The rating system rates the last 80-100 games that you play. If 1600 was based on 9 games, then the above player would get 2100. If 1600 was based on 80 games, it would be much lower than 2100, and that is logical. S/he has to continue that performance for some time to show the real strength. If after the training, the player really becomes a 2600 player, then it would take a couple of tournaments (8-9) to show the real rating. On the other hand this performance could be a fluke, and the rating system considers this.
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.