Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:00:56 08/02/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 02, 1998 at 09:37:24, Don Dailey wrote: >On August 02, 1998 at 08:01:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 31, 1998 at 20:51:56, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>> >>>On July 31, 1998 at 14:00:04, Peter Fendrich wrote: >>> >>>>The ratings on ICC and FICS are really swinging. IMHO they are using a >>>>completely wrong approach to handle this. The ELO formula is not at all suited >>>>for the kind of events taking place on these real time severs. The original ELO >>>>formula is using a kind of constant a 'dampening' factor for varitaions during >>>>time. At least on ICC they have tried to use another, more dynamic but similar >>>>method to handle this problem. There are new, much better, ways to deal with >>>>this. Nowerdays used within some of the space, aero and automotive applications. >>> >>>Both ICC and FICS tried to use the Glicko system. >>> >>>On ICC, they made it an "extra" rating system, but I don't think anyone paid >>>much attention to this, so it is removed from the "finger" notes. It is still >>>there, but to see it you have to use "yfinger". >>> >>>On FICS, they made this the only rating system. I am not there much, but I >>>remember seeing a lot of posts about this, people were upset about this system >>>because if you played a lot, your rating tended to stay constant no matter how >>>you did, and people wanted to have more movement in their ratings. So I believe >>>that on FICS they patched Glicko somehow, so that ratings would still move a >>>bit. >>> >>>bruce >> >> >>the problem with "Elo" is that the "K" factor was statistically derived from >>the typical number of rated games a person would reasonably play in a year, and >>the max expected rating change of a person over that time frame. It is totally >>wrong for a server where (say) a program plays 20,000 games per year. Because >>we see the huge swings that result from this. Chances are that if you are a >>2,000 player today, you will be a 2,000 player in 6 months, regardless of how >>many games you play, So it would be difficult to pick a formula that is fair >>to those playing a dozen games a year and to those playing thousands. > >I wonder why they don't give people the option to use a smaller >K factor? > >- Don You can't do that.. It would grossly distort ratings... someone plays a group of opponents and decides which he can beat regularly, and then adjusts K to maximize his rating increase... expect to lose? small K. there's already plenty of rating abuse there. :)
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.