Author: James B. Shearer
Date: 14:00:15 03/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 1999 at 13:35:46, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>this is another interesting aspect. The "K-factor" in the rating calculation
>was arrived at most likely by 'trial and error'. IE it was tuned for tournament
>chess where you might play 5-10 games per month, and K has to be large enough to
>let your rating swing as much as it should. But what if you play 100 games per
>day. I'd almost think K should shrink _way_ down... ie as in the "glicko"
>rating system that is _much_ more stable. IE what is the probability that
>Crafty is actually 200 points worse than yesterday, when _no_ changes have been
>made? Very low. Yet if I play an equal-rated player, my rating changes by
>+/- 16 after one game. For a server, I believe this is _wrong_.
I agree that the K factor on ICC introduces unnecessary noise into
the ratings. However I suspect reducing it substantially would be unpopular
because players like to see a good streak move their rating significantly (even
if it is most likely just luck). It would also reduce the maximum rating
difference at which the strong player has a chance to win points (unless ratings
were made noninteger or figured probabilistically) which would also be bad as it
would discourage stronger players from playing weaker players.
Different K factors for active and less active players is another
possibility but this would mean rating points are no longer conserved which
could introduce its own problems.
James B. Shearer
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.