Author: Albert Silver
Date: 13:41:59 02/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2002 at 16:38:41, John Merlino wrote:
>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.... ;-)
He's right. It's easy to prove, and I propose we conduct a test in which I'll
play a game against Chessmaster at the rate of 1 move a year, to see if I can
get a rating of zero. I'll get back to you in 2003 with my first move.
Albert
>
>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.