Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 10:26:42 09/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 07, 2001 at 05:54:37, Slater Wold wrote: >Therefore, FICS is obviously more involved, however, I doubt it's any more >reliable or accurate. But there surely are _NOT_ 3500 rated players at FICS. >(2797 is actually the highest.) But that's probably because ICC has about 10x >more games a day than FICS. And of course, better players. (GM's, IM's, etc.) > >And both ICC and FICS have "assesswin." One of the ICC top players (Hawkeye) used to visit FICS sometimes and his rating didn't explode either. The top players are actually similar (the comps also count for the ratings you know), and they don't seem to inflate too much either. The Glicko rating system has been improved since to correct some issues implementations like FICS showed, but you need to license the new version (Glicko 2). FICS's major flaw seems to be vulnerability to eeking. I get the impression ICC doesn't have this as bad. Players like Chronatog used this to get 3200-ish ratings in some wilds. There used to be a player 'Loedertje' that topped the best lists and never played anyone but players new to FICS. The highest rated 'fair' player I know of is ascp(C), as suicide- chess playing program by Angrim, that's rated around 3090 IIRC. The latter rating may very well be justified, i.e. not inflated. -- GCP
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.