Author: Keith Ian Price
Date: 16:12:13 07/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2003 at 18:25:30, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >On July 09, 2003 at 16:43:27, Keith Ian Price wrote: > > >>That is not what he said. He said the 40-point difference was meaningful, but >>the 2800+ rating was not, since it is not pegged to any absolute rating. > >As rating only tells you something about strenght differences, and nothing about >"absolute" strenght - whatever that may be, how can't a rating be meaningful, >yet a rating difference can? > > >J. The rating only tells about strength difference when compared to another in the same pool. So it is the rating difference that's important. The lack of importance as to the rating is whether it is 2800+ or 2700+, where the percentage difference between 40 point differences would be small. If someone were to say it should be 1000 instead of 2800, then it would be arguable that it is not meaningless, but no one I've heard from is suggesting that. kp
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.