Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:14:45 06/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2004 at 14:30:48, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On June 15, 2004 at 13:38:56, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On June 12, 2004 at 16:57:06, Peter Fendrich wrote: > >>>Well after 10 games you can't even rely on the accuracy of error bars and >>>shouldn't use them (based on the bell curve) but the rating is well defined as >>>one value. "x's rating after 10 games is 2739" is a correct statement. >> >>That is misleading and very bad science. >>Why not say that the rating is >>2739.8356245494183672715153891736273563 >>? >>Even though you are not even sure about the leading 2. >> >>>/Peter > > >Is Peter one of the statistical scientists behind the creation of SSDF? I can't >believe it. I think he is just following current practice (for instance a FIDE, USCF, BCF etc. rating does not descibe its own accuracy). When a player is said to have a rating of 2345 what does it mean? We have no idea, although for the very rough ratings they are called 'provisional'. It is much better to describe the ratings like an entry in (for instance) the CRC handbook of chemistry and physics, with a tolerance figure to show how well known and accurately described the rating is. But since nobody else does it, they do not follow the practice either. On the other hand, they provide the necessary data to produce the same information, with their error bars.
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.