Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:40:07 10/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2003 at 07:49:29, Francesco Di Tolla wrote: >>I agree that programs are getting stronger but the comparision of SSDF to FIDE >>is nonsense. Mr Elo is spinning in his grave. SSDF is an narrow pool of >>silicon players , FIDE is wide range of human players. In a narrow pool pf >>players, the top players(programs) gets overrated when compared to other pools. >>I call this the "Bloodgood effect" after Claude Bloodgood. Claude Bloodgood was >>a strong player, perhaps of master strength who became the second highest rated >>player in the US by playing nobody but other inmates while incarerated for >>murdering his mother. Also , similiar to the SSDF computers , this group of >>inmates were playing hundreds of rated games per year, far more than the average >>human player. > >Is there any known relation among the ELO of two populations that use same >calculation scheme and that have different sizes? > >I mean does the absolute dimension of the population affect the average ELO? > >Furthermore is it known (besides avoinding the error of assigning ELO to people >having lost al games in the provisional period) what is the effect of the way of >assigning and initial ELO to the ELO average? > >regards >Franz Size isn't so important. Content is. You won't have the same players, so the ratings won't be comparable.
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.