Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 14:11:42 07/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2003 at 16:07:03, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >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"? You need to read more carefully. > > >>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. It seems you are for some reason very defensive about shredder. Relax.
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.