Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 22:07:10 01/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2003 at 21:56:45, stuart taylor wrote: >On January 16, 2003 at 16:47:53, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On January 16, 2003 at 16:16:02, david wight wrote: >> >>>please help with your thoughts. >> >>I, Dann Corbit, as a human player, am at 2900. Of course, that puts Kasparov at >>2900+1900, = 4800 (roughly speaking). >> >>The numbers are arbitrary and have no meaning in absolute value. The only >>purpose of ELO is to demonstrate strength levels via DIFFERENCES. >> >>HTH > >So you DO admit that there are playing strength levels in chess, just that it >can't be gaged exactly. One year 2800 might be a certain level of game, and the >next year it might take about 3500 to play the same game! The Elo formula is useful to predict outcomes over a broad range. If a measurement is calibrated based upon data in a single pool, then the difference can be used to predict future outcomes (on a broad basis -- not individual measurements, of course). Not sure how that connects with your question/statement. My point was that Kasparov can be 2800, 3800, 50,000,000 or whatever we choose. As long as someone 300 ELO beneath his ability is given (Kasparov's ELO-300) the calculations will be the same. It is obvious that Elo figures drift over time. An Elo of 2500 from 1875 has little connection with an Elo fo 2500 today.
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.