Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 09:30:54 10/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 2003 at 11:05:41, GuyHaworth wrote: > >As many said previously, the absolute numbers mean nothing: it is the >difference between the ELO numbers for two players that indicates relative >strength. > >But I assume your question is posed about the rating system as it is now, not as >it might be with a hypothetical 200 added (in which the answer is "It has been >done already"). > >If a 'perfect player' starts off with a rating of 1500' and wins all its games, >playing at each stage someone with its own rating (or the next one down), I >wonder how long it would take before it was playing GK at the top, and then how >long it would take to get to round numbers like 2900, 3000 etc. > >In fact, I do not know if there is an upper ELO limit, an asymptote for its ELO >score. There is no asymptote. If (for instance) a player won 90.90909% of his games from a pool of 2700 players, then the Elo of that player would be 2700 + 400 = 3100 If (against the same pool) the 2700 players managed only 1e-5 % of the points, then the Elo would be 2700 + 2800 = 5500
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.