Author: Chris Carson
Date: 09:10:33 06/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 03, 2002 at 11:50:18, Sune Fischer wrote: >On June 03, 2002 at 11:29:13, Chris Carson wrote: > >>On June 03, 2002 at 11:01:04, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On June 03, 2002 at 08:41:12, Chris Carson wrote: >>> >>>>...you can compare avg GM, Top 10 average, # above 2700, ... >>>>That is my point! Ratings can be compared and descriptive stats from different >>>>era's can be compared. This is not the only type of comparison that is valid, >>>>but this is one valid and objective method to compare people from different >>>>era's. Hypothesis testing can also be done to establish any ratings inflation, >>>>these would include skew analysis. >>> >>>No you can't compare ratings. >>>If you take a pool of 100 people and let them play eachother again and again >>>they will improve, yet their mean rating should stay constant. >>>If you add bonus points (e.g. 0.5 elo for every match played) then how will you >>>know how much elo this strength increase is worth, ie. why not add 0.456 elo)? >>>How will you even measure they have improved, since they have _all_ improved, so >>>there will be no relative strength displacements (in principle). >>> >>>What if all 100 players suddenly stop playing for 1 year, they become rusty yet >>>their rating remains from what it was a year ago. >>>How will you decide on the amount of elo to subtract when a player as been >>>inactive for a given time? >>>Finally, new players will enter this pool all the time and climb in rating on >>>the expence of others, and when old GMs stop playing they do not release their >>>rating back into the pool of active players, so the average must go down. >>> >>>There are no fixpoints to calibrate by, no human performs at a *constant* level, >>>even from day to day there can be large fluctuations. >>> >>>Machines without learning can perform at a constant level, so they would have to >>>enter the pool as players, doing the task of fixpoints. >>> >>>-S. >> >>Longitudinal studies compare people over time. Since you are a student, I >>suggest you look into how to do stats for longitudinal studies, there are many >>different ways to do this. >> >>Longitudinal: "involving the repeated observation or examination of a set of >>subjects over time with respect to one or more study variables". >> >>Between groups studies compare variables between two or more independant groups. >> Some studies do both logitudinal and between group comparisons depending on the >>variables to be studied. >> >>I do both longitudinal and between groups studies all the time. You can find >>more about this at the library and you can look under "psychology" or "social >>science" studies/research to see how it is conducted in practice for human >>subjects. > >You are probably using some assumptions that are incorrect. > >Do you assume that the mean rating should stay constant? No, I only said that you can compare the mean ratings, I did not say it stayed the same. > >Today we have the internet, which means any chess player can get a mental >workout 8 hours a day if he wants to. >Today we have very strong programs that can assist our analysis and speed up our >individual improvements. >Today chess theory has evolved, openings refuted, novelties found... > >You can't say for sure that the rating should remain constant, if you enforce >this on the pool then a 2500 player back then may not be as strong as a 2500 >player today how knows all the latest and hottest variants. I never said it remained constant. All I have said is that it is valid to do a comparison and hypothesis testing to see if ratings inflation exists. It may. Hypothesis testing will also confirm or deny the significance of any change. It may or may not be significant, that is what hypothesis testing determines. > >I think objectively it is "easier" today to reach the level of a 1970's GM, >because of all the aids available to the player. This doesn't "prove" or >disprove inflation of rating, we just cannot compare strength across the time >barrier. > >-S. We can compare strength across time and we can do studies to determine the effects of factors you listed above (they may have no effect or they may have a significant effect). We could also set up a study to determine if it is "easier" today. It may be, but I would need to see research on that before I would make that claim. Same for ratings inflation.
This page took 0.01 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.