Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:29:01 10/21/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 21, 1998 at 09:18:57, blass uri wrote: > >On October 21, 1998 at 08:07:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 21, 1998 at 04:37:38, Nouveau wrote: >> >>> >>>On October 20, 1998 at 12:13:16, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On October 20, 1998 at 10:37:36, Nouveau wrote: >>>>>On October 20, 1998 at 01:36:22, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Here's result for 20 games match with 60/5 time limit (under Winboard): >>>>>> >>>>>>Comet 0.5 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 1 0.5 0 1 0 = 8 >>>>>>Wcrafty 0.5 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 0 1 = 12 >>>>>> >>>>>>So they are very close to each other in playing strength. >>>>>> >>>>>>Jouni >>>>> >>>>>12-8 is very close ?????????? >>>>> >>>>>When can we say : Crafty is better than Comet ? 18-2 ? >>>>> >>>>>I don't understand these statistical stuff : I can't imagine a 12-8 result in a >>>>>match between 2 GM with a conclusion like "They are very close in playing >>>>>stregth". >>>>> >>>>>Why do we need hundreds, maybe thousands of games between computers to evaluate >>>>>relative strength, when few dozens are more than needed for human GMs ? >>>>Any strong conclusion from a single match is faulty. It could be that Comet is >>>>500 points above Crafty, or 500 points below (although both of these are >>>>statistically very unlikely, really, very little has been demonstrated at this >>>>point from a single set of games). >>> >>>Just imagine : the match between Kasparov and Chirov takes place and the result >>>is : Kasparov-Chirov = 12-8. >>>Maybe Kasparov is 500 points above Chirov or 500 points below...Show me any >>>chess magazine that would print such an affirmation. >>>I know, those chess journalists don't have a clue on science and stats ;o) >>> >>>> The international chess bodies like FIDE >>>>have definitely got it right in the way that they perform evaluations using the >>>>ELO method. Also, in requiring a long period of excellent results to become a >>>>GM. >>> >>>Can someone make the math for this : a player has a 2600 level but no rating, >>>how many games against a 2500 opposition does he need to reach 2600 ? >>> >> >> >>easy here. one game. his rating would be 2700 after that one game, since >>the first N games uses the usual "TPR" type calculation. > >after 1 game you have no rating >you need at least 9 games to have a rating (not important if it is 2005 or 2700 > >players who have 2005 rating need at least 30 games if you assume they cannot >earn more than 20 elo in one game. > >Uri No idea about FIDE rules about ratings, but the USCF publishes ratings after a single tournament. I have known players with ratings like this: 2244/4, which means provisional with only 4 games played so far. And during the provisional period, the rating can fluctuate dramatically because the formula is simply the sum of the ratings of the opponents you beat (+400 for each one) plus the sum of the ratings of the opponents that beat you (-400 for each one) plus the sum of the ratings of the opponents that you drew, divided by the total games counted. IE performance rating. And in that light, beating a GM gives you his rating+400 after one game... And I assume most use K=32 nowadays (at least the ratings I have seen do this) which means you can go up/down up to 32 points in one game...
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.