Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 12:57:14 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 :) Ratings predict results. The Canadian system is arguably MORE accurate at predicting results than the US system for this reason, but certainly not less. Dave
This page took 0.01 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.