Author: Don Dailey
Date: 11:46:34 08/02/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 02, 1998 at 13:00:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. :) I don't recommend that people have the option to change it whenever they feel like it, perhaps they simply are allowed an initial choice and given one chance to change their minds later. Or maybe they are allowed to change after 6 months with a given one. But a better idea might be to start with a high K and have it adjust dynamically depending on how much you play. It shouldn't get ridiculously high or low but should be limted in either direction to reasonble numbers. I also advocate that if you play someone who is not well established, your K factor should drop too for that one game, since the results should not be weighted too heavily. I know these things can get tricky so I don't know if this is a reasonable suggestion or not (not that anyone is listening.) - Don
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.