Author: greg moller
Date: 21:44:56 05/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 1999 at 20:01:01, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On May 06, 1999 at 19:37:02, Peter Kappler wrote: > >>On May 06, 1999 at 17:17:10, Luis E. Alvarado wrote: >> >>>I do not understand why the BLITZ ratings of IM and GM masters on ICC are so >>>inflated. Is this normal? Why some GM with ELO ratings betwen 2500 and 2600s >>>have BLITZ ratings in the 3000s. It appears that these rating are biased by mor >>>e than 400 points on the top end. >> >> >>ICC ratings are unreliable for a variety of reasons: >> >> >>1) Cheating. Many players use computer assistance (wihout saying so). This >>causes their ratings to fluctuate wildly. >> >>2) Non-random opponent selection. I know players who will avoid an opponent >>whose rating is currently below their true strength. Likewise they will try to >>players that they think are overrated. Or they will find an opponent who >>doesn't match up well with them and play them over and over. My experience is >>that a few of the Crafty operators are the worst offenders... >> >>3) Anti-computer specialists. This is really just a special case of #2. These >>people play a very slow, quiet game that is difficult for computers, or they >>search for holes in the opening books of automated computer accounts and exploit >>them. My program, Grok, has recently suffered from this... > >Thank these people. They are doing you a favour. Every time they bust your >opening book and you have to fix it, that's one less hole for someone to hit you >with in a real tournament. > >>4) Varying time controls. This may sound silly, but the fact is that some >>people are particularly good at certain time controls. If a 3 0 specialist >>happens to play a 3 0 match against another player who is used to a slower time >>control like 5 3, the result will probably be skewed in favor of the first >>player. >> >>I could go on and on, but I think these are the main problems. Obviously #4 is >>pretty minor, but #1-3 cause big problems with the efficiency of the rating >>pool. Since the computer-related problems tend to have more impact at the high >>end of the rating scale, I think the ratings are particularly unreliable there. > >I would say that #4 is also very important. For instance, if I play 5 0, my >rating will drop to the 1800s. When I play 2 6, I can hold high 1900s or low >2000s. If I play 2 12, I can even get over 2100. Of course, it's much tougher >to find people to play 2 12 than 5 0. 2 12 gives lots of chance for someone to >operate a computer, and 5 0 doesn't, so it's easily understandable. Agreed that #4 is very important, too, but I know people who's rating _drops_ when they play 2 12 and such. Actually, since 2 12 usually requires no mouse skills, I believe the 2 12 pool to be more compact, with less fluctuation , merely because there's one less skill involved, and the element of chance is also diminished. regards, gm > >Dave
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.