Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:20:43 02/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2002 at 16:04:24, Albert Silver wrote: >On February 22, 2002 at 15:52:59, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: > >>I work in the area known as Analysis.Anyway this is how I came up with the >>300 number.I think it is just a good rule of thumb ( I have not still conducted >>any experiments yet) .For example many comps action rated by the USCF have >>action ratings 200 above the slow 40/2 rating.I merely added 100 to the action >>rating to get the blitz .Nothing fancy. > >So you're saying that if a perfect player beats Kasparov 100% of the time at >40/2 it will be rated 3300, if it beats him 100% at g/30 it will be rated 3500, >and if it beats him 100% of the time in Blitz it will be rated 3600? I suppose >that it gets more perfect the faster it plays? I think I see the progression. It will be infinite ELO when he can win the game in zero seconds. (Obviously, it's a form of derivative, since we can never actually reach zero seconds. But we can introduce a number called Megiston, which is larger than any real number. Then, we take the inverse of Megiston: inf = 1/Megiston to achieve a number which is smaller than any real number but is not zero. That is the time frame where the GM will have infinite ELO for completion of won games. A postal GM can never have an ELO over 2000, I think. An interesting model, of course, but slightly non-standard. It must come from the branch of math known as "Analysis."
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.