Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 08:25:21 01/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 17, 2003 at 10:29:26, Uri Blass wrote: >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. It isn't, I thought you were complaining about losing rating when winning a game? >>>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. Formula please? >>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. No, the Elo method doesn't care about program updates. You may have won 5 games now but lost 10 games yesterday, it isn't clear if you are above 1800 or not, you must have done something to get a 1600 rating. When you get a challenge you are informed how much you will lose/win pending the outcome. I agree it should be possible to adjust that increment so if you know that your program has improved 500 Elo you could get there faster using a higher coefficent. However, this must break some fundamental fixed mean assumption. Ie. that in a large pool of players the mean rating should remain constant, if one goes up another must go down. It is pretty unrealistic that everyone should go up, but of course with programs that is usually the case. >There are a lot of other examples but nobody care about it so it is not going to >be changed. People care, it's just that no better method has been proposed ;) -S. >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.