Author: Brian Kostick
Date: 15:40:29 11/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 23, 2002 at 14:39:02, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 23, 2002 at 13:45:44, Brian Kostick wrote: > >>On November 23, 2002 at 00:04:03, Mustafa wrote: >> >>>hi MY FRIEND I WAS PLAYING TODAY IN WCN JUST FOR FUN I WAS 2100+ BUT I SAID TO >>>MYSELF LET US PLAY SOME GAMES FOR FUN AND LOSE I LOST GAMES AND REACHED SOON >>>1000 THEN AN ADMIN CAME ONLINE AND HE SUSPENDED ME WHEN I ASKED WHY HE SAID ME U >>>HAVE NO RIGHTS TO LOSE LIKE THAT U HAVE LOSE ON PURPOSE.BUT I DID NOT LOSE ON >>>PURPOSE.SO WHAT I SUGGEST U ALL IF UR A MEMBER THERE NEVER BUY A GOLD MEMBERSHIP >>>BECAUSE THEY BAN FOR NO REASON THEY SUSPEND FOR NO REASON THEY ARE TOTALLY MAD I >>>PAID 43$ US FOR GOLD ACCOUNT BUT THEY SUSPENDED MY GOLD MEMBERSHIP JUST BECAUSE >>>I LOST GAMES........... >> >> >>I would like to question the part about losing, or gaining, +1100 points over a >>few games. Is this the best the administration (or formula) can do? Seems to >>unstable to me. Any thoughts? >> >>Regrads, >>BK > >No > >It is clearly possible that some chess program get low rating and improve by >1100 points because the programmer changed it from playing random move to >something better. > >I think that a good rating system should allow change of 1100 points in few >games. > >If 1500 program gets 8 out of 10 in a tournament when the average of the >opponents is 2500 then it make sense to give the program 2600. > >Uri Hi Uri, I agree with you when running a program, which could gain/lose strenght overnight in code, or building a humans provisional rating. I had the impression that it was person vs person games and their playing strenght should remain more constant. Regards, BK
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.