Author: stuart taylor
Date: 16:43:55 07/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 2003 at 18:36:46, Maurizio De Leo wrote: >>>ok maybe just -100 for all. >> >>That was done one time already, and cheapened ssdf in my eyes, because the more >>truthful way would have been to have reduced every rating with seperate >>calculation for each program, by a certain (same for each) percentage. >> >>That would have been much more honest as well as accurate, and it's surprising >>that chess players aren't intelligent enough to see this! >>S.Taylor > >Maybe you should reconsider calling stupid the chess players and think about >what you said. > >Elo rating are calculated so that what matter is the DIFFERENCE between them. >The difference between two ratings is related to the probability of the outcome >of the match between two players. > >You seem to think that the ABSOLUTE VALUE of elo is a misure of "strenght" of >the player. >In fact it is not so : > >1) a 2000 elo player isn't 2 times stronger than a 1000 player >2) a 3000 elo player isn't 1.5 times stronger than a 2000 player. > >Actually what elo points mean is that in both case 1 e 2 the player rated higher >will have a winning expectancy of 99.x (I don't know the exact number). > > >Bottom line : > >The correct way of reducing the rating in an elo list is EXACTLY to reduce all >the elo by a fixed amount and NOT to scale all the rating with a certain >percentage. > >If in case 1 the two player become 1900 and 900 the winning expectancy between >them remains the same. If they become 1900 and 950 as you proposed this is not >longer true. > > >Thanks to whom read until here :-) > >Maurizio I might agree that I can reconsider thinking them as stupid, but you are atleast getting a bit deeper into the deep mathematics. I don't know if THEY did. Did they? S.Taylor
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.