Author: John Merlino
Date: 13:38:41 02/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2002 at 16:37:26, Dann Corbit wrote: >On February 22, 2002 at 16:33:16, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: > >>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. > >Hmmmm... >That seems backwards, doesn't it? > >After all, if the faster you play the higher your ELO goes, shouldn't your ELO >drop to zero as the time control slows? Simple addition to the speed chess >formula seems to have broken down. > >Perhaps it is a parabolic arc, with one end at zero, and the other end at one >move per month or something. > >We can easily test that notion, because the derivative will be a linear function >and the second derivative a constant. Then, the 3rd divided difference will >always give us zero. I'm not sure which one of you is scaring me more.... ;-) 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.