Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:07:12 03/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 19, 2002 at 18:00:35, Daniel Clausen wrote: >Hi > >On March 19, 2002 at 12:49:40, stuart taylor wrote: > >[snip] > >>I thought it was atleast loosely connected universally, i.e. that one group in >>some place having a tournament for beginners wouldn't start them all off with a >>basis of 2500 elo, but would start them off according to standard guidlines. >> Absolute perfection should obviously fall somewhere between 3-4000 elo if >>calibrated with most of the world. > >"obviously"? :) > >Let me illustrate my point. A perfect player would approx have 750 ELO points >more than the 2nd best player (ie Kasparov) therefore approx 2850+750=3600. As >soon as a super Kasparov shows up and reaches 3000 ELO (being ~150 ELO's >stronger than Kasparov) the ELO of the perfect player would go up to >3600+150+3750 ELO. And so on. > >Sargon I think that you assume that somebody who gets 100% against kasparov can be rated only 750 elo better than kasparov. It may be right if you use the elo formula that is used in Israel but the formula is wrong. I think that you assume that the perfect player is going to get 100% against kasparov and I believe that this assumption is also wrong because even the random player can get more than 0% against the perfect player. If you do not assume 100% for the perfect player then you must assume that the perfect player is going to score the same against kasparov and against a 3000 player and this assumption seems to be wrong. Uri
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.