Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:48:58 02/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2002 at 15:22:00, José Carlos 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. >>Bill > > The answer is that ELO is only a _relative_ measure of results. ELO tells you >"how player A performs compared to a given pool of players". There's no up or >low limit, it's just a comparison. For example, in my private tests, I always >set Averno 0.32 rating to zero, because I'm interested in know the advance in my >newer versions compared to that. So, in my list, Crafty is 600-700 ELO. > ICC is _a different pool_ and so ratings are not comparable in absolute terms. >But they are in relative terms. For example, if Averno 0.32 and Crafty play on >ICC, Crafty will have a lot more ELO than Averno. Let's say 3300 for Crafty and >2500 for Averno. Your zero line is actually optimal, since the precision of calculations will be higher with that baseline than with any other. ;-) Not a property of the mathematics itself, but (rather) a product of floating point math on a computer which is really preformed on a subset of the rationals. [Much to the surprise of many]
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.