Author: blass uri
Date: 13:33:18 02/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 23, 2000 at 16:17:02, Dann Corbit wrote: >On February 23, 2000 at 15:30:47, Thorsten Czub wrote: > >>On February 23, 2000 at 15:01:14, Bertil Eklund wrote: >>>Have you ever thought about that the human pool works in the same way, except >>>for being much bigger? >> >>the human pool is inflated too. or do you think lasker was really that weaker >>kasparov is ? >>the fact that the human pool is inflated, now tells you to make it as stupid >>in the machine pool ?? >>sense ??? > >Inflation is completely irrelevant. The ELO rating tells you about broad >probabilities. In general, for instance, an ELO difference of 100 points means >that given a large enough group of players, those with 100 points less would >earn 36% of the points from games and those with 100 points higher would win >(100-36)% of the points. I think that the probabilities are based on wrong assumptions. Suppose people with 2400 earn 36% of the points against people with 2500 and people with 2300 earn 36% of the points against people with 2400. what will be the result of people with 2300 against people with 2500? I have no reason to believe that it is the number that the theory suggests because the theory was based on some assumptions and not on investigation of games and I have no reason to assume that the assumptions are correct. Uri
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.