Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:36:35 08/02/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 02, 1998 at 14:46:34, Don Dailey wrote: >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 At one point in time, FICS was doing something like this... the "K" factor is reduced by playing games, and increased by passing time. If you play frequently, your K stays low because it is very doubtful that someone's rating would fluctuate very much over the span of a few hours or a few days. If you don't play frequently, your K stays "up" since it is possible tht your rating could change over a period of weeks or months... It seemed to be quite good (to me) but a human would win 5 or 6 games in a row against someone and complain when their rating did not jump like it would in a USCF event. The problem is everyone wants + changes, but no one wants big - changes. :) Bob
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.