Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:02:31 07/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 2003 at 15:22:31, Sune Fischer wrote: >On July 13, 2003 at 15:03:38, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On July 13, 2003 at 12:42:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>I (and many others) believe that the Elo system works well for players >>>that are pretty close in rating. It seems to work less well (in the case >>>of computers) for players that are significantly separated in ratings. >> >>I agree mostly, not sure why it should be different for computers though. >> >>>Starting at the top eliminates the bottom of the pool from the "war". If >>>the bottom can't drop, then neither can the players at the top. So you get a >>>new top. If you start the new (and strong) program at the bottom, he will >>>drop _everybody_ as he goes up, and it would seem that this would result in >>>the new player going to the right "differential" spot but that it might be >>>lower than it would have been with a high start. > >I can add here, that his opponents wouldn't go down, on average they would stay >the same because you can't adjust their rating based on someone who hasn't got >an established rating. The general answer to this is that his opponent's ratings are updated _after_ his rating goes beyond provisional and is established. But beyond that, we are only talking about the first 20-24 games. How long will a player play before he succeeds in working his way up to Kasparov's notice? > >After he has played the entire field, you might see the bottom increasing and >the top dropping, thus deflating the scale. That is, if my suspicion of the Elo >formula holds true. > >-S.
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.