Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:01:48 06/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2001 at 10:42:19, Mark Young wrote: > >I don't know. I'm I missing something. Where did Bob apologize? Just look for this: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Below... > >1. It is not acceptable to put quotes around words that one has never used. >2. This is a typical Hyatt deflecting tactic he has used on many occasions over >the years. He purposely misstates ones position to take attention off the topic. >(It crosses the line when he starts quoting me one something I never said.) >3. Bob has no Idea how the ratings at www.chessmetrics.com were generated, Bob >state he knows how they were generated. Bob didn't state any such thing. I stated, quite clearly and distinctly, that it is _impossible_ to predict ratings for players of earlier years. Ratings are based on a rating pool of players. I will state it again. If you don't have a real rating for a player that was active in (say) 1890, then there is _no_ way to compute a rating for him today. Nor is there any way to compare his old rating (if he had one) with the ratings of today. Different rating pools make Elo numbers non-comparable. That is _all_ I said. I don't know _how_ they computed old ratings. It doesn't matter. However it was done is scientifically invalid, which is what counts. ?That implies that you can take ratings >from today, compute ratings for players active 20 years ago, then take those >ratings, and back up another 20 years, and repeat he above, until you go back >far enough to compute one of these whacko ratings? This is just dead wrong. See >web site. >4. This has nothing to do with what was being discussed in the thread. (see 2) >5. a. The only points in the thread that I have made is Ratings is the only >measure we use in chess, b. Ratings can be generated for any pool of players >past or present because we know the outcome wins, losses and draws of the games >they have played.. Neither of which Bob can refute (see 2) I can refute that point all day. I take pool one to be 10 players of GM-level today and beyond. I take pool two to be 10 players of class C level only. I let both pools play to establish their ratings. Both pools will be rated roughly identically. But what happens when a 2000 player from pool one meets a 2000 player from pool two? No question. So "ratings" can be generated from any pool, but the pool must be a "common" pool... not two disjoint pools. Which means ratings prior to the acceptance of the Elo system are all "hypothetical ratings" with very little meaning. > > >> >> Albert >> >> >>>Nothing >>>new for you. I will keep posting, you do what you wish. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Publishing a rating list that spans 200 years implies the ratings are >>>>>>absolute. Otherwise the numbers are meaningless. Which they actually are. >>>>>> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::; ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Just read the _next_ sentence, which was quoted by you when you responded.. I think that will clear it up _nicely_. You accused me of posting without "reading first". Sound like a pot and kettle issue? Since you _obviously_ didn't read the sentence below??? >>>>>>If I misunderstand what you provided below, then accept my apology for >>>>>>interpreting it incorrectly... >>>>>>
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.