Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 09:20:42 01/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2000 at 11:45:37, Will Singleton wrote: >On January 18, 2000 at 08:49:48, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>"R(mhz) rating/log(mhz)/100. Shows the performance of an account, >> taking into consideration the cpu speed." >> >>First of all Will is taking into account for his formula a logaritme, >>combines that with rating and computer Mhz. >> >>This assumes a logarithmic connection between Mhz of a machine and its >>rating. >> >>Obviously this is wrong. >> >>Let's take crafty: >> >>Wild 2148 [6] 195 50 8 253 2148 (06-Aug-1999) >>Bullet 3033 6241 1412 1018 8671 3191 (27-Oct-1999) >>Blitz 2858 48312 12919 8716 69947 3268 (27-Oct-1999) >>Standard 2550 3761 1496 1117 6374 2785 (08-Aug-1999) >> >>Machine = 4x400 = 1600Mhz >>rating = 2550 >> >>So this would make >> R(mhz) = 25.50 / log(1600) = 7.95 >> >>Now that sounds a bit low to me personal already. >> >>Let's now assume that Bob wants to top the green list: >> >> He needs 11.0 then as R(Mhz) to top it more or less. >> >>So 11.0 = rating / 100*log(1600) >> rating = 11 * 100 * log(1600) = 3525 >> >>So crafty needs an incredible rating of 3525 to top the greenlist. >>Good luck Bob! >> >>Why invent a formula if it's in advance already dead wrong? >> >>Rating is not based upon the 10th log of something. >>It SURE does not represent performance taking into account >>the machine speed. >> >> >>Vincent > > >Couple things. First, crafty's efficiency isn't 100%, I don't believe. I use a >figure like 75-80% when calculating the effect of multiple cpus, which is just >an approximation. But you're right, the formula seems to work better in a >narrow range. Have a better formula for me? > >But come on, Vincent, the whole list is just an approximation. Many folks feel Then don't use such a silly approximation! It's not even an approximation what you're using. If you want to penalize people who run at fast hardware, then don't do divide it by that! >that ICC ratings have little real-world significance, due to the factors present >in server play. Again, the list is just for entertainment purposes, it doesn't >purport to be anything official. ICC is using a constant K factor of 32, where ELO, using under 2000 a constant K factor of 2000, goes slowly back from 30 to 10 at rating=2400. Above 240 then K=10 constant. Up to say 2300 you hardly feel this difference, but above that, then it's relatively easier to win rating. That is of course explaning why ICC ratings are easier possible above 3000. >Having said that, on ICC one does see a general correlation between ratings and >perceived strength. >Will
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.