On Apr 28, 10:42 am, "David Kane" wrote:
"raylopez99" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Apr 28, 2:17 am, "David Kane" wrote:
"raylopez99" wrote in message

Thanks David Kane. My speculation about what you thought was bogus
about the current Elo rating was then largely correct--seems like it's
the sample size being too small--for a moment I thought you had some
other special insight and/or were a crank. I still find ELO quite
useful when done in a normal distribution--play more games, and you
lower the error rate. Of course if you don't play often then you can
have an erroneous rating.

BTW here is the list of soccer (football) ELO ranked champions:
http://www.eloratings.net/world.html

RL

You will note that this rating system is a modified ELO system
that considers the score as well as the result.

In principle,a system that truly rated the moves wouldn't have
to use the result at all. For example, if a 1900 played like a 1700
but beat a 1300 playing like a 1500, then the winner would lose
points and the loser would gain them! Of course, some hybrid
such as that used in soccer could also have merit.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Interesting, now I see where you're going. So, to further amplify, if
you fail to find the best move possible and, in a mating net, fail to
mate your opponent in the most efficient manner possible, you could in
theory lose points or not win as many points as somebody who mates in
X moves, as opposed to mating in 2X moves. I suppose this is
analogous to losing Elo points if you fail to win, but only draw,
against an opponent who is much weaker than you.

RL