illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in
rec.games.chess.misc:

It is ohhh so easy to shoot-down an idea which may not be perfect in
practice!


The idea is not shot down. The idea is _discussed_ here because it has a
flaw. The flaw is that Sterten, the originator of the (ofter proposed)
idea, wants to establish an absolute value based on relative values.
He wants to define "absolute strenght from a fixed point" as "strenght
difference from an 'unfixed' point".



But the idea of objectively measuring, not merely final results of
games, but
overall accuracy of moves, is a legitimate one.


There is no question about the legitimacy of the idea, there is question
about the logic behind the idea.


Unlike the flying ceebee and terrybean, I am unafraid of such an
*objective*
approach to my own games.


I'm glad you're unafraid. Casually following your messages here I can see
you have a special taste in mixing with discussions ending in a fight and
a possible ad hominem attack.

That's okay, Usenet is free and lets you be all that you want to be. It's
your stage as well.

But don't confuse your regular attitude in discussions with knowledge of
the subject you're discussing.
Worse, your message shows that you either didn't take the time to follow
the discussion, or shows that the content is way above your head.

There's nothing wrong with benchmarking. The way as it is proposed by
Sterten is however flawed as it is based on a factual misunderstanding of
the chess rating system. He tries to solve a non-existing problem with a
method based on incorrect assumptions.

It has been explained to him, and I'm interested in discussing about it as
long as he finds the subject interesting himself.
And I leave the "shooting down" to you, even if you don't seem to have a
clue in what direction you are shooting, what you're shooting at, and why
you're shooting at it in the first place.

Happy hunting.

--
CeeBee


Uxbridge: "By God, sir, I've lost my leg!"
Wellington: "By God, sir, so you have!"


Google CeeBee @ www.geocities.com/ceebee_2