Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:42:21 03/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 1999 at 13:17:59, Tim Mirabile wrote: >On March 17, 1999 at 09:25:35, James T. Walker wrote: > >>On March 17, 1999 at 08:56:49, Albert Silver wrote: >> >> >><snip> >>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. >>> >><snip> >> Albert Silver >>Hello Albert, >>This all sounds reasonable to me. One cure might be to allow only one >>"Registered Program" per computer account. >>Jim Walker > >Actually, it's wrong. In a closed pool, everything should eventually balance >out again as the program rises back to where it used to be, since the rating >formula is symmetrical. In reality, there should still be some deflation as >slightly overrated players drop out and never give back their points. But the >natural deflationary effect of new players coming in low and then improving >would be slightly mitigated as they will achieve slightly higher provisional >ratings than normal. this is a problem.. Fortunately ICC gives us the ability to reject challenges from such players to avoid that huge rating. IE if a new player would play crafty right now, (rated about 3,000) he could lose every game and end up at 2600, then he will distribute those ill-earned points to others since he is likely not that good, and we see ICC of today. 3 years ago I was happy if I could stay over 2500. Now I don't like anything under 2900. And 2900 is rediculous.
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.