Author: James T. Walker
Date: 15:40:18 11/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 2004 at 19:17:19, Sune Fischer wrote: >On November 02, 2004 at 16:44:17, James T. Walker wrote: > >>On November 02, 2004 at 08:22:10, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On November 02, 2004 at 07:42:24, James T. Walker wrote: >>> >>>>Just plot a graph with 999 data points all with a value of zero. Then plot >>>>another graph of 1000 data points all with a value of zero. Then compare the >>>>difference. >>>>Jim >>> >>>Ratings can become negative, so zero is not the lowest rating possible you can >>>get. Zero is actually an arbitrary number you just picked out of nowhere, you >>>might as well have said -1000. >>> >>>The proof of this is easy, even without knowing the formula. Just consider the >>>1400 guy and someone who is 400 ELO weaker, then consider one that is 400 ELO >>>weaker than him and so on, you quickly get negative ratings. >>> >>>I don't know what the lowest rating is, even if you assume perfectly worst play >>>your opponent might also be playing perfectly bad or close enough to that so you >>>don't lose every time. >>>You can thus never get an expected score of 0 and an equivalent rating of >>>-infinity. >>> >>>-S. >> >>What is your point? > >To inform you that zero is arbitraty value, and that it isn't constant because >even if his rating is 0 his expected score will be higher than 0. >So he will lose rating if he doesn't score anything. > >-S. The zero I mentioned was not arbitrary at at all. It was not a rating but a score of a game (0/.5/1.0). Nobody in the USCF has a rating less than 100 because that is the rating floor for all. So I still don't see the point of your ramblings. Jim
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.