Author: Kerry McDermott
Date: 10:52:09 08/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2003 at 12:19:22, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 19, 2003 at 20:05:54, Mike Byrne wrote: > >>On August 19, 2003 at 12:00:35, Kerry McDermott wrote: >> >>>Thanx Mike. That was very helpful information. I am going to post my question >>>differently to see what others may think. How did you find out about USCF >>>ratings being adjusted down by 150? >>> >>>Regards, >>> >>>Kerry >> >> >>Until last October , I had not played USCF for about 5 years. Although not >>playing USCF, still keeping my hand in chess with computer and the what not. >>When I came back, I felt like I was better player than 5 years ago. I had 3 >>draws against players that were juts baove my rating. So much for feeling like >>I was better - I was wrong or so I thought. Fast forward to May of this year, I >>played in my tournament since coming back. I noticed one of old friends rated >>near 1600. Back in 1995, he was rated over 1800. Hmmm, the aging process is >>not going for my friend or so I thought. >> >>http://www.64.com/uscf/ratings/10159130 >> >>During the tournment I kept an eye on his game. His game did not seem any >>weaker. To make a long story short, one of the other locals started telling >>me how the USCF systematically too everybody's rating down because of rating >>inflation. Of course that only impacted those who played. They set floor that >>were genrally 200+ points below their high. In Roy's case above his floor is >>1600. One can see he touched the floor several times. The last year, the USCF >>decided they over corrected and are now psuhing ratings back up again. You can >>see that Roy's rating is going back up. >> >>Ken Sloan probably understands ratings and ratings systems as well as anyone - >>this short piece is great: >> >>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3870583014d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=t766h9mrlv.fsf_-_%40uab.edu >> >>This has been discussed at length at r.g.c.p - this thread has of the >>participants that were actually involved in the USCF rating decisions - there is >>a lot of mud slinging. >> >>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl286037684d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=8t99ed%24bom%241%40nnrp1.deja.com >> >> >>Marty Glickman and Ken Sloan are, IMO, two people who really understand how the >>rating system works. Generally speaking, USCF has never had totally neutral >>rating system - there has always been inflation or deflation parameters at work. >> Search usenet where Ken Sloan or Marty Glickman are the posters to gain the >>most intelligent understanding of ratings. > >I think that it is possible to prevent inflation and deflation by using a weak >non deterministic chess programs. > >These programs(let say with average rating of 1600) may play in many tournaments >when every program get the same number of games and their performance should be >1600. > >If they perform like 1650 when their should perform as 1600 then it is going to >prove that the rating of humans is too high and all humans are going to >go down by 50 elo. > >If they perform like 1550 when they should perform as 1600 then the opposite >should happen. > >In order to prevent big luck factor in the adjusment we can decide that at least >1000 comp-human games need to be played before the adjusment. > >Uri Excellent idea!! Has it been suggested/tried before?
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.