Author: Martin Slowik
Date: 08:08:46 11/05/05
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Steve, hi Stefan, if I may butt in... I rather agree with Stefan but would like to add just one further point.... >most collectors feel this way but its true that some do not >and of course i am greatly interested in the ratings of the high-end computers >in my collection > >for the really early computers the ratings are not so important Actually I think most people overstate the importance of ratings way too much. As you certainly know mathematics is what I do for a living and my experience is that people let themselves influence by numbers too much (This statement by a mathematician..! Well...). ;) In this particular case it's not only the statistical problem (not enough games). The other thought is certainly not new either: Elo numbers are just a sort of weighted averages of past results with all the advantages and drawbacks attached to this concept. Of course if you have two pupils, one with the average mark B the other with the mark C, you can safely assume that the first one in general has been better. But: you still don't know who is better, say, in math.... (Or, another example: Shirov is certainly a strong player but the Elo numbers don't tell you the whole story about his chances to win in the next game against Judith Polgar....). So everything boiled down to a single number doesn't help you much - rather the contrary is true. It gives you just the confidence to know it all.... Anyway. We all want to see the results expressed in one number, so let it be. I, personally just try to keep all this in the back of my holey ole' head... :) >but i am only one man in a far away country and i of course cannot change what >has already been decided on > >so i will go on my lonley thankless way and complain a little here and there > >:)) *lol* Laughing Regards, Martin
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.