(Sterten) wrote in rec.games.chess.misc:


with this proposed move-rating system, rating
becomes more absolute.
You can even rate two players who both play
their very first game.

And how do you get to valueing those individual moves? As soon as you

by a strong chess-computer. Sorry if this was unclear.

state that "solving this move is equivalent to solving it by a GM of Elo
2550." As soon as you have done that, you have started to work with the
elementary thing about ratings: differences.

What you propose is like determining the top speed of a car relative to a
lot of other cars we know the performance of. The result again is not an
absolute value, but a difference in speed.

You are certainly not the first, and will certainly not be the last person
who wants to "benchmark" individual player's strength, independent from
tournament and OTB performance.

it's the first time in history, that we have the tools , i.e. strong
and fast chesscomputers, available now

In what way you use a rating system like you propose, you always use a
rating system based on differences. It will always come back to your
calculations.

right. But you fix the base _once_ .
Then you can compare ancient players,computers,players from
separated islands, ET-players etc. all with one system.
You no longer have to care about disconnected isolated
components in the multigraph of "chess-players".

Also the process to improve this sort of rating will probably
also lead to better chess-computers and their better understanding
of human moves.