Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: WMCC and TPR (Tourn. Perf. Rtg.)

Author: James T. Walker

Date: 05:30:19 08/27/00

Go up one level in this thread


On August 26, 2000 at 14:46:08, Stephen A. Boak wrote:

>In below threads, there is discussion about comparing performances of various
>programs using 1) Ranking or average Ranking (for 'teams') or 2) TPR -
>Tournament Performance Rating or average TPR (for 'teams').
>
>I suggest that using 2) TPR as a measure of which program (or team) is best is
>inappropriate under many circumstances, including the circumstances of the just
>concluded WMCC competition where the  ratings of the participants varied
>greatly.
>
>Examples:
>
>My rating is approx 1900.  Let's say I play in a 4-round tournament in an
>appropriate class section (Under 2000 rating--which typically includes mostly
>1800 to 1999 rated players) that happens to several very weak entrants--possibly
>up and coming young players that wish to get tougher competition to foster their
>chess development.
>
>Example 1:
>
>Assume I play the following opponents, and have the following results:
> Ro     Pts     GPR (Game Perf Rtg--using +/- 400 rule for TPR calc)
>1300	1	1700
>1950	0	2350
>1975	1	1575
>1960	0.5	1960
>	    TPR	1896
>
>In this example, my TPR (1896) is less than my current (starting) rating of
>1900, despite the fact that I scored 1.5 / 3 against better players and 1 / 1
>against lower rated players--all results better than my expected average scores
>against such rated opponents.
>
>Clearly I performed better than a typical 1900 player would (on the average),
>yet my TPR is lower than 1900 (my current start rating).  Why?
>
>The best TPR you can achieve is limited when you play players far below your
>rating.  Even if you beat one of them (above, in the example, I beat a 1300
>player, 600 points lower than my rating), that result will 'artificially' lower
>your average TPR for the tournament.
>
>Example 2:
>
>In a small local tournament, my rating (1900) is by far the highest among all
>the remaining, low rated, participants. I play four 1300 players and beat them
>all, in a 4-round event, my TPR will be 1700 (limited by their low ratings).
>
>ELO Systems are better.
>
>By USCF rating rules (ELO-based), I will gain a few rating points (approx. 9
>points increase) for my performance in the Example 1 tournament.  I might gain 1
>to 4 points (maximum) in Example 2.
>
>CONCLUSION:
>
>TPRs are most useful and meaningful for comparative purposes when:
>
>1. A compared program has a well-established rating (not perfect, but based on
>many prior games and results against rated opponents).
>
>2. Large numbers of games are included in the TPR calculations (say 20 or more).
>
>3. The games included in the TPR calculations are against a wide variety of
>opponents, rated both above and below your mean (average) rating.
>
>With many games, against a wide variety of opponents, both above and below your
>rating, the possible TPR skewing due to playing an occasional player well above
>or below your rating is relatively small when averaged in the TPR calculation
>for many games.
>
>ELO formulas, however, take into account both your and your opponent's ratings,
>in order to determine statistical expectancies for scoring.  When you perform
>better than expected based on starting ratings (score more points than expected)
>your rating will increase.  The opposite will occur when you perform worse than
>expected.
>
>By contrast, TPR used for comparison purposes has its limitations.  For a single
>Swiss pairing tournament, the pairings of the individual programs may greatly
>differ, depending on which programs score better early in the tournament and
>which score better late in the tournament.  Two programs that tie in final score
>may have significantly different TPRs--not due to the inherent abilities of the
>two programs, but due to the random factors involved in the pairings during the
>entire tournament.
>
>The large number of relatively weaker participants in the recent WMCC
>competition lead to TPRs that are not very useful for comparing performances.
>
>--Steve

Hello Steve,
It seems to me you are trying to compare apples to oranges.  TPR is used for
unrated players to only approximate their performance in a single tournament.
If you play enough games in the single tournament you may receive a
"Provisional" rating based on your performance.  Once you have an established
rating (20 games in USCF) the TPR has no real significance except it may give
you a quick idea of how well you have done compared to how well you should have
done.  Even with an established rating it is only an approximation within a
range.
Jim Walker



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.