Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 02:41:50 01/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 17, 2003 at 01:07:10, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. While true in principle, there is 1 fixpoint commenly used: beginners rating at 1000 Elo. If you also put random play at 0 Elo you have a good (fixed) scale. -S.
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.