Author: ALI MIRAFZALI
Date: 13:33:16 02/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2002 at 16:20:43, Dann Corbit wrote: >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." It is amazing how many times you have missed the point in these type of philosophical conversations.There has been studies done by some researchres comparing Cooresspondence elo with OTB elo. (The tigres and Sharks experiment ).For example.The studies do confirm what I say.People in general do 500 elo points better in corr. then they do in OTB .THat is: if a 1700 elo player could play his COrrespondence level chess overthe board he could get an OTB rating of 2200.What is so difficult about this to understand.I do not think you need a PHD in mathematics to see this.
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.