Author: John Merlino
Date: 13:37:27 02/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2002 at 16:34:40, William H Rogers wrote: >On February 22, 2002 at 15:18:16, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On February 22, 2002 at 15:13:25, William H Rogers wrote: >> >>>Now I am currious. Is Crafty really rated that high or was its opponents not >>>rated low enough? This is not a slur to Dr Hyatts Crafty, we all know that it >>>plays great chess, but maybe instead of raising a players rating, they should >>>consider lowering an opponents rating as to not exceed the possible max(i.e. >>>3300). I think that would bring a much more resonable response to all players, >>>except of course, those whose ratings were forced to be lower. >>>Food for thought anyway. >> >>If a program always wins and never loses, it could rise very far above 3300. If >>they put a lid on the score of 3300, then that will simply push the others down. >>For example, if a program got to 3800 and everyone became aghast, they could >>simply drop 500 points from the ELO figure. Of course, someone who used to be >>2500 has now suddenly got an ELO figure of 2000. I don't know if that will make >>them happy. >>;0 > >That was my whole point Dan. Maybe we should set a ceiling and then downgrade >everyones elses scores. At first they would all be mad I am sure, but then when >they looked at everyones elses scores it should ease the pain. At the current >rate of play the elo's could possibly reach 4 or 5 thousand and that does not >sound realistic. >:~) Why is 4000 "less realistic" than 3000? It's just a number that is used to determine RELATIVE strength between two or more players in a game/tournament/pool. jm
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.