"Dave (from the UK)" wrote in
message ...
David Kane wrote:
"Dave (from the UK)" wrote
in message ...


I believe the assumptions Elo made are simply not valid in the case of an
absolute beginner. As such, attaching an ELO number to something where the
assumptions are very wrong is not sensible.



Of course they aren't.

So we agree!

But what would be your
response if I were to claim in Ken Sloan
fashion that an adult of average intelligence
who just knows the rules has a rating of 2700?

A large number of players who play the game seriously don't have a rating of
2700, so it's fairly easy to disprove that one. Putting an upper bound is
fairly easy. Anyone who thinks it would be over 1200 is really got to be mad.

Similarly, those with experience with players in the
x00's range, also believe that 1000 is mad.

The fact that there is uncertainty to ratings doesn't
make the discussion meaningless.


By the way, I think in the USCF system the rating
formulae change at about 8 games. The USCF rating
algorithm assigns beginners a very high K-constant
(80, I think, which can be effectively doubled via
"bonus" points)

I don't know how the USCF method works, but I assume this K-constant you talk
of is some measure of the standard deviation (uncertainty) of the rating. For
a new member, this will be higher until they are established.

So the number of games actually
going into a rating is much smaller than the number
which defines a "provisional" rating. Someone can
correct me, but I don't think provisional ratings are
treated differently in the rating algorithm.

Anyone who is a member of the USCF would have to be reasonably serious about
the game, so they would have played many times before. I don't believe someone
will learn the rules, then join USCF and play their first ever game in a rated
competition.

Not true. For better of for worse, many kids do start playing rated
games knowing very little.

As such, it should be possible to determine a rating reasonably quickly, as
they performance is unlikely to change a huge amount from game to game.


If your point is that ratings mean more for some than others, then
certainly that is true.

In contrast, as absolute beginner who only just learned the rules, playing his
first few games, should learn a lot very quickly. They should soon learn about
the fact knights can fork. So its very likely the large K-constant you talk of
in USCF rating systems is not sufficiently large. So I don't believe you can
rely on the USCF system in this case. In any case, the USCF system would have
been designed for serious chess players - not those who just learned the
rules.

The value of the K-constant is how much a rating can change from
a single game. I have no idea whether the USCF method
has been proven optimal for all ratings but it covers all ratings.
I only brought it up because the number of games that a
rating is "provisional" doesn't necessarily have anything to
do with the number of games for a rating to equilibrate
in the rating formulae (~800/K).

One *possible* way to establish a rating for absolute beginners might be as
follows.

Take 1000 beginners and let them play their *first* ever chess game against a
low rated player (say 1200 for example). Results of any of their later games
are ignored. Each person plays just one game.

Statistically, if there is a rating difference of x between two players, the
probability of wins and losses can be computed. The 1200 players should beat
the beginners in most games, but the percentage might allow you to determine
how much stronger the 1200 players and and so assign an average rating for
those 1000 people after just one game. That would be VERY doggy, and not very
practical to do, but at least it would give you a result from only one game,
so they don't have any chance to improve.

I can't help feeling the concept of a rating for someone who has just learned
the rules is absurd. You can put a lower limit of 0, an upper limit of 1200,
but I don't believe you can say anything else really.


As mentioned elsewhere, 0 has no special significance in the rating system.
In fact the minimum rating in the USCF system is 100. 1200 (or 1000, or 800)
can be refuted in the same way that 2700 can be refuted - by showing
that players with those ratings can beat average intelligence
adults. (Whether the adults have strictly just learned the rules is
just a detail, unless you are suggesting that player's ratings would
*decline* by playing)