The "Heisenberg" theory is cute, but it only goes as far as the "measurement
affects outcome" idea.
Sloan may be right that the scale is arbitrary, and we may employ negative
numbers, fractions, or even imaginary numbers if we like. We can make an
average rating zero instead of 1500.
But in the real world that is an unnecessary complication for a very simple
idea. We normally think of achievement in terms of numbers from zero to some
higher number, for example:
* I own six chess trophies (when I was 11 I had none)
* Federer's world tennis association ranking is based on some positive
number of points earned in tournaments (at some point he had no points, and
no ranking)
* I have several hundred ACBL master points (at one time I had zero)
What is the sense of using negative numbers here? I never had minus-three
chess trophies; I never won minus-two tournaments. Why should my rating be
negative?
"Dave (from the UK)"
wrote in message ...
David Kane wrote:
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.
I don't doubt that. If I had said 1000, there might have been some
argument about it, so 1200 seemed a sensible upper limit.
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.
Having just learned the rules? Which is what I thought we were talking
about.
I could see that someone might learn the rules of chess from a book or the
Internet and not having a human opponent, go onto ICC, FICS or whatever
and play their first game. I doubt they would join USCF and play their
first game there.
I guess there is always the parent who wants his/her child to play chess,
so they pay for membership and get them doing it from the beginning. I
used to teach maths to someone who did not really want to learn
mathematics, but his Dad wanted him to. (I'm not a mathematician BTW).
As mentioned elsewhere, 0 has no special significance in the rating
system.
Sorry, I thought it did, but I see you are right.
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)
I was talking about someone who had JUST LEARNED THE RULES, which is what
I believed the other threads were referring to. In that circumstance, by
playing several games an average (or even somewhat below average)
intelligence human can't fail to learn and so improve.
--
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)