Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 02:54:18 10/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2002 at 04:52:40, GuyHaworth wrote: > >Totally agreed: only the differences between the ELO numbers are relevant. > >I believe there is an inflation effect in the ELO system. Sadly, investigating >this - by theory or simulation - hasn't got to the top of my 'to do' list yet. > >Anyway, the more games played, the narrower the confidence bands on ELO figures, >but the greater the inflation. > >I believe it was for this reason, or for the sake of credibility, that SSDF >knocked back the absolute numbers a couple of years ago. Maybe they knocked 100 >points off or something? > >Other rating systems, like Thompson's for the PCA, maybe do the rating better >with less inflation, but they haven't been widely adopted. Perhaps that's a >pity. > >g In Germany I read an interesting ideas from Detlev Pordzik, aka Elvis, that SSDF should lower their values to 250 Elo numbers. So that would reduce the maximum numbers to 2500 and something. Again, what I've written hundreds of times, SSDF could do that but the inherited worst error in SSDF is the testing of machines from DIFFERENT pools! Exitus. The End. Rolf Tueschen
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.