Author: Tony Werten
Date: 23:19:15 07/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2003 at 19:12:13, Keith Ian Price wrote: >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 If the rating is inflated by 10 % then the difference between 2 ratings is also inflated by 10% This shouldn't be to difficult to check. A rating difference of 40 points should give a certain winpercentage. Did Shredder get this winpercentage ? Or did it only get the winpercentage against 200 points lower rated opponents ? Tony >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 0.03 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.