Author: Jeroen van Dorp
Date: 13:07:03 07/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2003 at 15:46:12, GuyHaworth wrote: > >The main message is that SHREDDER 7.04 dominates the field by some 40 points, >approximately the same as Kasparov leads the FIDE ELO list. > >The 2800+ figure is not meaningful, as stated elsewhere here. An Elo rating tells you the difference in strenght between two opponents. Have you any clue why the rating difference between shredder and the next on the list is "not meaningful"? >I heard once that there was an inflationary effect built (incidentally rather >than deliberately) into the ELO system. I don't know if this is true, or if so, >why it is true. > >But if so, I would expect the SSDF rating list to 'inflate' faster than FIDE's >as the same number of games happens in a shorter time. I don't know if ELO >ratings can be pegged back on a fairly frequent basis to counteract this. You don't know _if_ it's true, you don't know _why_ it's true, yet you expect it to be true with Shredder? J.
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.