Author: Don Dailey
Date: 13:09:33 08/02/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 02, 1998 at 15:36:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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 Ok, One other suggestion. Post 2 ratings, one with high K and another with low K. Better yet, use only low K and publish a performance rating based on the last 20 games and call it "recent performance" or something like this. Then players can see good results get immediately rewarded! - 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.