Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 11:07:34 10/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 1999 at 11:41:30, KarinsDad wrote: >On October 05, 1999 at 07:58:05, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >[snip] >>> >>>Well i can understand that, but it still seems like that rule in your >>>particullar chess federation should be changed because others don't do that. >>>The rating system is designed to at least give a rough measure of strength, and >>>rating a game that has no moves played assists that purpose in no way. >> >>This isn't true. The system is self-consistent, it reflects that the person >>doesn't always show up! Just like the rating system takes into account how >>often you play when you're sleepy (I do this all the time!) or have a cold or >>whatever. >> >>Dave > >I think you are justifying a system that does not reflect playing strength as >"accurately" as other systems. > >Although the system is consistent within itself, it IS less accurate than a >system where the point is lost, but ratings adjustments are not made. Having a >1200 player gain 32 points due to a 2400 player forfeiting to him (and vice >versa) is kinda silly. Effectively what you have in the Canadian system is noise >which distorts the accuracy (this being a relative term since no rating system >is totally accurate) of the ratings. > >KarinsDad :) Distortions are swamped out by all the games that end normally. What percentage of games does the average player win or lose by forfeit?
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.