On Apr 28, 3:55 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
"raylopez99" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 28, 10:42 am, "David Kane" wrote:
"raylopez99" wrote in message
groups.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
That's an example but likely not a good one. It depends on how strongly
finding the most efficient mate is corrolated with players who win more.
The moves with the most predictive value (I'd guess) would be those
where the outcome hangs in the balance - better players will find them,
weaker players won't. But it's something that would have to be
determined empirically.
With ELO, you gain points if your performance is better
than expected by your rating. With move rating, you'd gain
points if your moves are better than expected by your rating.
I will also comment on the "Tal" argument that players
can play objectively bad moves on purpose in order to
increase their winning chances. This isn't a fundamental
objection at all - all that it means is that the analysis function
will have to be more complex. I.e. if it is determined that
playing objectively inferior moves really gives
superior winning chances, then we'd just have to quantify what
it is about those moves that makes them work, and then adjust
the calculation accordingly to give credit for them. For example,
in the lower levels of scholastic chess if you arrange your Queen
and Bishop in a battery aimed at the castled King, there is a pretty
good chance that it will pay off with a win. The 20-ply "best play"
analysis of the moves has no more relevance to the game than
the phase of the moon. Perhaps at that level we don't need Crafty
analysis at all: we can have just two dimensions: "threatens mate
in 1" and "hangs pieces."- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The trouble with your system is that you can play a "beautiful" game,
full of profound moves, then, like Kramnik did against the computer
last year, miss a mate in one and lose the game. But your rating
would go up under your system (if you played, sans the one losing
move, 'above' your level).
I'm not sure the average person will understand this proposed system.
RL