Author: blass uri
Date: 14:29:00 10/21/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 21, 1998 at 16:29:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... I remember that in fide rules K is not constant and it is bigger for players that did not play many games. I do not remember the exact rules but I do not know about K=32 in fide rules and I think that K is smaller for everyone. I know that I needed at least 9 games against rated players to get a fide rating. I needed 2 tournaments for a fide rating because in the first tournament I had not 9 games against fide rated players. 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.