Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:29:26 01/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 17, 2003 at 07:50:41, Sune Fischer wrote: >On January 17, 2003 at 06:12:52, Uri Blass wrote: > >>People who play their first tournament are often not beginners so you cannot use >>this information to compare rating of today players with the past players. >> >>Putting computers that play random moves as players in tournament and having >>more computers in the rating list(for example computer that does 3 ply search of >>all the moves and choose a random move that is not losing more than 0.4 pawns >>relative to the best move) can help but unfortunately people object to >>participation of computers in tournament so it is not going to happen. >> >>The sad truth is that >>people in general are not interested in correct rating and this is the reason >>for the stupid rating system when you can lose rating from winning a game. > >I lost rating too at first on ICC, started out very high and then fell. >I'm not sure what you suggest to improve that, the first 20 provisional games >are not really counted, it's a kind of test games. This is much better than >those places where you start at 1600 or something and then use the standard >rating scheme from there on. I've sometimes encountered a 2100 dude that was >rated 1600 because he just joined, with no provisional period you suffer the >full Elo penalty of losing to a 1600. With a provisional period like the one on >ICC I would lose maybe a few Elo and he would go up several hundered Elo. My >rating is well established so we can calibrate his rating after mine, but not >vice versa, this is fair. This discussion is not about rating in ICC. The fact that the rating on ICC is more correct for new players relative to another stupid systems is not relevant for this discussion. > >>The rating system was also changed such that people can calculate their rating >>because people in general prefer wrong rating that they can calculate and not >>right rating. > >Sure, we must have a rating we can calculate. Yes but we do not need to have a rating when the players can do it by a simple formula. I think that it is better to have a rating that only a computer program can calculate. >Is there a right rating? I don't think so, certainly not for people who >sometimes have a bad day or a good day. It is possible to get closer to the right rating by a better estimate but nobody is interested it. one example. It is possible to increase the coefficient(k) of a player that is not a new player but does significantly better than the expected result. suppose that a chess program with rating 1600 play against 1800 players and win 5 games in a row. What is going to be your best estimate for the rating of that program. The best estimate is more than 1800 because you can guess that the reason that the program performed better is a significant update in the program and not luck but the rating that this program is going to get will be lower than 1800 in case that it is considered as a stabilized player. There are a lot of other examples but nobody care about it so it is not going to be changed. Uri
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.