Author: Albert Silver
Date: 10:12:52 03/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 1999 at 09:58:04, Andrew Dados wrote:
>
>On March 17, 1999 at 08:56:49, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>This whole story about Mark's account screwing up the ratings on Chess4u has
>>been somewhat interesting. No doubt a few will disagree. The reason is that NO
>>ONE except for Hyatt, though for different reasons, actually gave any credence
>>to this. Chess4u is right, but not about Mark. The accounts that inevitably
>>cause inflation are the ones that use more than one program or accounts where a
>>lot of testing is done. Suppose I have, as Mark did, Hiarcs 7 running on a
>>PII-450 and it gets an official rating of 2800. No problem as it is indeed
>>playing at that level and it's results correspond accordingly. Now suppose after
>>about 2 months, I see the latest version of GNU chess out. The author claims it
>>is vastly improved and should be playing much better, though no one knows just
>>how much. I decide to test it with my account. GNU chess is not a 2800 player,
>>but when testing starts it is playing with a 2800 rating. It gets trounced by
>>the super opposition and the rating drops until it stabilizes at around 2300. I
>>am not personally worried as after the testing is done, H7 will obviously regain
>>it's lost points. The problem is that 500 points were spread out in the pool and
>>they don't properly represent an increase in strength on the opponents' part.
>>When I get back, I don't go to 2800, but a bit higher as I am now playing the
>>same opponents, but with slightly higher ratings. If a program undergoes
>>testing, and experiences severe rating fluctuations while it is being tested,
>>then the same phenomenon takes place. Bob is obviously already aware of this as
>>his notes to his Crafty account on ICC state that opponents who clearly play him
>>ONLY when Crafty's rating is high but never when it is at a low, will be
>>'noplayed'.
>>
>> Albert Silver
>
> Some loose remarks on a subject:
> According to your post *any* bigger rating fluctuation cause ratings
>inflation. Same holds true when I come to server tired or, like some weekend
>players, drunk. How does it differ from your point, dunno.
You're rating at a given time represents your latest results and will fluctuate
according to your form, but it will remain (overlooking a sudden brain tumor or
cataclysmic understanding of chess) within a certain ballpark. Say under normal
circumstances I play at 2000 strength. Sure, there are bad days for whatever
reasons, when I play at 1800-1900 due to blunders or simply bad play. There are
also days when I will be feeling particularly inspired and then my game is at
2100-2200, but in the end, this fluctuation will even out as the points tossed
will be regained and vice-versa. Computer programs also have a degree of
fluctuation but a MUCH smaller one. Playing a much weaker program and then a
stronger one will not even out the fluctuation. It is not a natural change.
Imagine if I were to do just what I depicted (switching from GNU chess to
Hiarcs) in Chess4u. Imagine I don't do this once, but repeatedly, switching back
and forth after 30 games or whatever it took. The ratings would sky-rocket. You
can be certain of it. Particularly as the number of players is small. In a place
like ICC it would take much longer, but it would have it's toll as well.
Albert Silver
> Other rating -
>related problem I noticed is deflational Glicko rating system implemented on
>fics, which does not preserve points pool.... but that's a different story
>(Well.. one guy blames computers for there is less and less players over 2000
>and people seem to make little progress over time).
> I've met some people who claim that computer accounts are overrated; a few
>who claim that they skew rating system and many, who just think there are too
>many (C)...
>....yeah... blame the puters... :)
> :Everybody, even aware that it makes little sense, want to compare rating
>numbers from different systems (like icc and uscf). When they are lower rated on
>chess servers (rarely)
>they blame 'system' or (C)... those numbers are miningless as absolute values
>and yet '2000' is way better then '1950'.....not to mention that magic 2200..
>
>-Regards-
>Andrew
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.