Author: Don Dailey
Date: 18:31:09 08/02/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 02, 1998 at 19:50:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 02, 1998 at 16:09:33, Don Dailey wrote: > >>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 > > > >Did you ever play any tournament chess? :) > >There are two kinds of players: > >1. wants the highest possible rating to impress everyone. > >2. wants the lowest possible rating to "sandbag" and win class prizes >at tournaments. > >On ICC, there is already *massive* cheating going on, folks using computers >to drive their ratings up... to impress people when they kibitz analysis >during games and so forth... It is *much* more about *the* rating, than >it is about *a* rating (*the* rating is the rating everyone sees when they >see a challenge or finger you there)... Yes, I was a tournament player. Unfortunately I am well aware of these flaws in human nature. I know that a lot of people placed way to much emphasis on the rating system. I remember being a 1600 player and having 1300 players thinking I was a god when I really sucked. I got to be a god again when I sucked as a 1900 player! I knew a guy who sandbagged all the time. I found it totally amazing that someone would go to the trouble to win 100 or 200 bucks, a lot less when you factor in the expenses and entry fee's. Not to mention the incredibly hard work a weekend swiss entails. Being a class underated is also no guarantee, a B player has to work hard to win a C class prize and an A player has to work hard to win a B class prize and so on. Even 2 classes down is no guarantee because out of many players there will be a few way underrated, and a few who play the tournament of their lives. This guy had 4 or 5 entries all with slightly different spellings of his name. We saw him at every tournament and started paying attention and discovered that at least 3 different USCF ID numbers belonged to him. I confronted him at one tournament and asked him why he wasn't playing in the scholastic section with the children, he should be able to beat them up pretty good. He got real quiet and turned red in the face. He also avoided me for the rest of the tournament which was good because I got tired of hearing him brag about the class money he also won. I don't get any of this, and don't understand it. It reminds me of the incident where someone used the Lang program at a computer chess tournament, but with their own housing. Or the guy at the US OPEN (maybe it was the world open, I wasn't there) who used a computer to play his games, and transmitted moves to a friend somewhere in the hotel, who then relayed the computers move back to him. He was wearning a radio with headphones the whole time. Or the time that lady jumped into the Boston marathon near the finish line to win it all! Rosie Ruiz I think her name was. Does anyone remember that? What the hell is wrong with people? - 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.