Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 18:18:49 05/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 23, 2000 at 16:11:13, Albert Silver wrote: >On May 23, 2000 at 12:20:55, Rafael Andrist wrote: >>On May 23, 2000 at 09:05:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>First, I don't think "90" is a "magic number". Bruce found that Ferret >>>searching very shallowly could hold a rating > 2200 on ICC. At the time, >>>his program was rated over 2800 in a real rating there. Which means each >>>ply was worth much less than 90. So "N" points per ply, linearly? I think >>>it is definitely possible. And yes, it is possible that some programs begin >>>to 'flatten out' while others don't. I don't see anything that suggests that >>>can't happen either. >> >>I think also that it's possible that the ELO is linear to the ply. But is the >>ELO linear to the playing strenght? I mean that it would be very hard for a 1400 >>ELO player to beat a 1500 ELO player but not for one with 2500 ELO to beat one >>with 2600 ELO. > >Why is it more difficult for a 1400 player to beat a 1500 player (presuming no >anomalies such as different lists, countries, etc...) than a 2500 to beat a >2600? Based upon broad averages (thousands of players and contests) there is no difference at all. The win expectancy is an identical 36% of the points scored for an ELO difference of 100 points.
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.