Author: Albert Silver
Date: 06:54:00 03/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 1999 at 13:42:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. > Your correction of my hypothesis if it was in a closed pool is entirely correct of course, but ICC is NOT a closed pool. They have a steady flow of players entering and leaving. Titled players NEVER leave unless they get thrown out or ask to have their accounts removed because their accounts are free so these ratings are pretty much permanent. Furthermore, ICC has the 7 day free-trial during which allows players to get a rating and allows them to make a quick in and out in the ratings pool. Finally, and this is really bad, the provisional ratings have an unusually high effect on established ratings (the opposite effect of Hyatt's newbie vs. Crafty scenario). I have seen a player come with a provisional rating of 1800 or so based on 2 games, play against a 2200 player (me), draw, and the 2200 player lose 32 points (something like that). Incredible, considering that the final and first official rating of this player was in fact about 2200. > >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.