Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 02:21:00 02/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2003 at 04:38:32, Alastair Scott wrote: >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. How do you know they inflate if you can't compare them? -S. >Alastair
This page took 0.02 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.