Author: Bouddha
Date: 10:28:33 03/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2004 at 13:01:15, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 17, 2004 at 12:53:55, Bouddha wrote: > >>On March 17, 2004 at 12:35:41, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On March 17, 2004 at 11:43:12, Anson T J wrote: >>> >>>>On March 17, 2004 at 10:40:30, Bigler David wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi, >>>>> >>>>>Shredder 8 performed 82 ELO point better than Junior 8 >>>>>Junior 8 performed 82 ELO point better than Shredder 7.04 >>>>> >>>>>So Shredder 8 performed 164 ELO better than Shredder 7.04 >>>>> >>>>>rgds >>>> >>>>I see, I thought when it was -41 / +41 that A was 41 weaker than b and b was 41 >>>>stronger than a. Not that a was 82 weaker and b was 82 stronger. Perhaps you are >>>>correct. thx >>> >>>56% is less than 50 elo difference based on fast calculation. >>> >>>If the result is 56-44 then I get the following difference in rating >>> >>>(56-44)/100*400=48 so my calculation give 48 elo. >>> >> >> >>Sorry, but I do not understand why *400 ????????? >>Please explain > > >The simple formula that I know says 100% is 400 elo difference and 50% is 0 elo >difference. > >everything between is linear. > >result of 5-3 can be translated by the logic to >((5-3)/(5+3))*400=(2/8)*400=100 elo difference. > >result of 56-44 is translated to >((56-44)/(56+44))*400=(12/100)*400=48 elo difference > >result of 50-50 is translated to >((50-50)/(50+50))*400=(0/100)*400=0 elo difference. > >The formula is not correct because there can be difference of more than 400 elo >but when the difference in elo is not very big the formula is approximately >correct. > >Uri Sorry but as far as I know, 100% is not 400 ELO and ELO vs % is not LINEAR ! rgds
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.