Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: why don't people understand that ratings are relative

Author: Alastair Scott

Date: 01:38:32 02/18/03

Go up one level in this thread


On February 17, 2003 at 14:41:34, Anthony Cozzie wrote:


>the elo system has no defined 0.  results are only defined in terms of wins and
>losses.  For example, suppose one defined the average elo to be 1600, and placed
>Kramnik, Kasparov, and Shirov in a room together and had them play 5000 games.
>Kasparov's rating would be 1650 at best.  Or we could define the 0 to be 0 -
>Kasparov would have a rating of 1200, and some people would have negative
>rating!  The whole thing is just like potential energy in physics: only
>differences in the rating system are meaningful.

Excellent explanation, and there is also the Flynn effect (such rating systems
tend to progressively inflate the numbers over time), which I believe has never
been explained.

Alastair




This page took 0.01 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.