Author: blass uri
Date: 05:41:50 10/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 1999 at 11:50:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 27, 1999 at 04:02:58, James B. Shearer wrote: > >>On October 27, 1999 at 01:30:58, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On October 27, 1999 at 00:42:09, James B. Shearer wrote: >>>[snip] >>>> This is not accurate. The ELO system is based on a model of the real >>>>world. Like all models this model is just an approximation of the real world. >>>>This means that some potential opponents will appear stronger when playing you >>>>than their ratings would indicate while others will appear weaker to you than >>>>their ratings would indicate. By selectively playing those opponents which do >>>>not play up to their rating against you, you can definitely raise your rating >>>>above what it would be playing all comers. >>> >>>How is this selection made? Without hundreds of games there is no way of >>>knowing who they are. >> >> Well for example you may play relatively better against computers than >>other humans play against computers. Then if you play computers exclusively >>this will raise your rating above what it would be otherwise. >> >>>If these persons/computers play others the ELO will balance out over time. >>>That's how it works. >> >> The opponents you victimize can restore their rating to its proper >>value by playing others, however your rating will remain elevated. >> James B. Shearer > > >That is true if (a) you are very selective in who you play and (b) you don't >play many games to let them discover 'holes' in your book or evaluation. I have >said before that the 'automatic' programs have a tougher time on ICC, _not_ an >easier time. Because if they cook my book, they will cook my rating. A manual >program will just simply lose and disconnect. And lose one game rather than >20. There is another side of the story. 1)Automatic program can play fast time control against humans and get rating from it when a manual program cannot do it. I believe that ban could play humans at 3 0 time control and earn rating if it was an automatic program. The fact that ban plays 5 5 games and not 3 0 games against humans is not productive for rating. 2)The assumption that a manual program is going to disconnect after a loss does not have to be correct. I understood that amir ban has no rule not to play again after a loss. I remember from a post of ban some monthes ago that in one case the opponent was the one who disconnected after a win. Uri
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.