Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 13:39:29 05/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 1999 at 15:47:02, James T. Walker wrote: >On May 05, 1999 at 11:14:00, Mark wrote: > >>On May 05, 1999 at 06:42:18, blass uri wrote: >> >>> >>>On May 05, 1999 at 04:34:41, Harald Faber wrote: >>> >>>>On May 05, 1999 at 03:10:10, blass uri wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>The Week in Chess gives what looks to be a mistake in Polgar's TPR for the Fritz >>>>>>>>match. Does anyone know the actual calculations used to determine TPR's??? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Fritz 5.32 ---- = = = 1 1 1 0 1 5.5 **2818** >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Polgar, Judit g HUN 2677 = = = 0 0 0 1 0 2.5 **1859** >>>>>>>>(?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>As we can count Fritz made a +141 elo performance ... >>>>>>>we can deduce that J polgar made a -141 elo performance ... >>>>>>>So Fritz have a 'default' rating of 2000 (Obviously the minimum for the >>>>>>>performance calculating program) >>>>>> >>>>>>So there must be s.th. wrong because Polgar had a rating of 2677 (see above) >>>>>>which would give 2677-141=2536TPR and Fritz 2000+141=2141TPR >>>>> >>>>>Fritz5.32's performance is 2677+141=2818 >>>>>Judit polgar's performance is 2000-141=1859 >>>> >>>>Can you tell me where you get the 2000 for Polgar from? It is neither default >>>>nor written above. Above it is 2677. >>> >>>The 2000 is for Fritz5 and not for polgar. >>> >>>Polgar's rating is not important when we compute polgar's performance. >>>The only important thing is that polgar lost to unrated player 5.5:2.5 >>> >>>Everyone who lose against stupid 2000 player 5.5:2.5 has performance >>>2000-141=1859 >>> >>>everything is right except the assumption that Fritz has 2000 >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>All you guys are great, thanks for the information. My final question is where >>does the 141 come from? Here in the US you can get a provisional estimated >>rating by taking, say, 6 games, adding 400 to your opponents rating if you win, >>subtracting 400 if you lose, and no change if you draw. Add those six figures >>up and divide by 6 and viola! Your provisional estimated rating. >> >>Is this general procedure (with possible minor modifications) how the value 141 >>is calculated in the above discussion? If it is, then by solving for X (instead >>of using 400) I get 376, which is indeed a minor moditication to bring my >>calculations in line with the 141 number. >> >>Thanks for your replies! Can't wait for HIARCS Yermolinsky! >> >>Mark > >I hate to tell you guys but you are all wrong. Performance ratings are >generallly only given to unrated players. There is no "assumption" of an >unrated players rating. The performance rating is found by the formula: >Rp=Rc +400(W-L)/N >Rp=Performance rating >Rc=Average rating of players opponents(2677 in the case of J. Polgar) >W=Number of wins(4 Wins) >L=Number of Loss (1 Loss) >N=Number of games (8 Games) >4-1=3x400=1200/8=150+2677=2827 >J. Polgar since she is a rated player would not be given a performance rating. >The fact that she performed at (1-4)=-3x400=-1200/8=-150 points below her >opponent is about all that can be said. Of course you are right. I think the "error" is in the program that calculates performance ratings, which apparently assigned a rating of 2000 to Fritz, and calculated Polgar's performance accordingly.
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.