Kenneth Sloan wrote:
Such complicated thinking on such a simple topic.

Maybe.

A rating is nothing more or less than a prediction about future
performance. It's a single position on a scale.

Agreed

One way to assign a rating is to observe the player's results.

Yes, obviously.


I still think my estimate is not too far off. Find yourself a random
adult of normal intelligence, teach him the moves and enter him in
5 USCF events of 5 rounds each. I claim that a good estimate of his
performance in those events is that the performance will be that
of a USCF 1000 rated player.

That is after 25 games !!! I thought other threads we were talking about
someone who had JUST learned the rules. Hence they would not have the
experience of playing 25 games.

I taught my wifes grandaugther the rules and played a few games with
her. It was obvious she was better significantly better after the third
game than the first.

What was my point that simply by making the measurement of a rating, you
are affecting the rating.


--
Dave (from the UK)

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form:
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.

http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)