Author: Dan Homan
Date: 05:43:13 07/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 29, 2000 at 19:00:06, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On July 28, 2000 at 18:14:13, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On July 28, 2000 at 15:58:53, blass uri wrote: >> >>>On July 28, 2000 at 15:33:47, Dann Corbit wrote: >>><snipped> >>>> Program Elo + - Games Score Av.Op. Draws >>>> >>>> 1 LarsenVB : 2610 186 226 12 79.2 % 2378 25.0 % >>>> 2 Storm : 2557 223 166 12 58.3 % 2498 33.3 % >>>> 3 Noonian : 2546 232 144 12 54.2 % 2517 41.7 % >>>> 4 Ozwald : 2542 166 223 12 41.7 % 2601 33.3 % >>>> 5 Monik : 2363 214 247 12 62.5 % 2274 8.3 % >>>> 6 Zephyr : 2317 215 215 12 50.0 % 2317 16.7 % >>>> 7 TSCP : 2293 180 402 12 83.3 % 2013 0.0 % >>>> 8 SnailSCP : 2185 214 194 12 62.5 % 2096 25.0 % >>>> 9 Raffaela : 1893 297 170 12 8.3 % 2310 16.7 % >>>> 10 Golem01 : 1695 0 0 12 0.0 % 2295 0.0 % >>> >>>The elo is simply wrong. >> >>The ELO is approximate, and correct within the stated error bars. > >That means that Golem01's rating is and will always be 1695? I think the zero error bars just mean that there is no information (no wins or draws) from which to calculate an error bar. They should probably be replaced in the table with "..." to indicate this. > >And that TSCP's rating can only get to ~2450, placing it at the middle of the >pack that it nearly won during the calibration matches? > I am not sure how the errors are calculated here, but generally error bars only specify a probability interval and not the 100% range of variability. So 70% of the time the elo may fall within the stated error bars and 95% of the time the elo may fall within twice the stated error bars, etc... etc.... I am not at all sure about the 70% and 95% - that was just an example. - Dan >I believe Elo ratings should never be calculated for situations other than >"normal" tournament play (as with humans). > >-Tom
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.