Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:30:49 07/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2003 at 09:28:23, Mike Hood wrote: >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. That's not half-bad. Every so often you hold a "mega-tournament" where everyone plays "god" and loses a high percentage of the games... :)
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.