Author: Mike Hood
Date: 06:28:23 07/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2003 at 16:10:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 14, 2003 at 13:57:18, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On July 14, 2003 at 13:33:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On July 14, 2003 at 05:14:06, Sune Fischer wrote: >>> >>>>On July 14, 2003 at 00:00:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>If you let a new, strong player start at the top, he can establish a higher >>>>>rating than if he started at the bottom and stumbled a few times, all the while >>>>>dragging everyone's rating above him downward, rather than just jumping on the >>>>>top few and leaping over them. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Yes, but only because the Elo formula is flawed! >>> >>>I don't think it is _flawed_ at all. It does its job pretty well. The >>>only problem is that the number (rating) is not an absolute measure of >>>strength, it is simply relative to the current players in the population. >> >>I believe it is, for the reason I stated below. >> >>>>If the formula was working accurately it wouldn't matter where he played, he >>>>should end up getting the same 2800 rating whether he played 2100 opponents or >>>>2750 opponents. >>> >>> >>>NO, and that is a basic misunderstanding. In the Elo system, X and Y >>>(those being rating numbers) are _meaningless. X-Y is the only thing >>>that carries any information content. IE the relative difference, not >>>the absolute number. Elo _never_ claimed that the absolute rating of a >>>player meant anything, it is only useful when compared to another rating >>>to predict the outcome between those two players. >>> >> >>I think it is you who is misunderstanding here, I'm not talking about the >>absoluteness at all. The 2800 was _relative_ to the group. > >Then I don't understand your complaint. If everybody's rating shifts up by >250 points, so what? That is only a problem if you think the absolute number >means something. Which it doesn't. I'd just like to see the top number stop >increasing year by year, indicating more improvement in playing skill than is >actually happening. IE the top programs are _not_ a Kasparov-like player yet. > >> >>>>It seems to me you want to subject him to a flawed formula by pitting him >>>>against lower rated playes so he gets a deflated rating, I don't think that is a >>>>good idea. >>> >>>I simply suggested a way to prevent ratings of 3200 in a couple of years. >>>Because so many want the absolute rating to mean something when it doesn't. >> >>Ahem... >> >>Are we on wavelength here? > >I'm not sure. :) > >My posts were about the inflation at the top. And a possible way to prevent >or reduce it. > >> >>-S. One possibility to prevent inflation in the Elo system is to introduce a fictional character into the rating pool, "God", with an arbitrarily chosen unchangable Elo. Maybe 3000, maybe 5000, who cares? This character would be introduced into the rating pool playing games against the top relative player and never losing. Maybe alternate wins/draws, or maybe 75%-25%-0% Win-Draw-Loss. Of course, this doesn't solve the problem of compatibility between a computer-only pool and a human-only pool. The pools would still have to be mixed to have any overall validity.
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.