On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:39:58 -0700, "David Kane"
wrote:


"George John" wrote in message
roups.com...


I appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions. For now,
I
will be mostly content to wait for the expert on the subject to post
here. I am very interested in hearing what he has to say.

I do understand that my suggested method may have a good deal of
uncertainty associated with it. I have a couple questions please.
If
we assume a *very large number* of four game matches between players
with a rating difference of 111, do you agree with the following:

1) The lower rated player will need to *on average* have a
performance
rating greater than or equal to 111 points higher than his or her
rating to attain a score of 2.0 or higher.

False. He has to have a performance higher than Brock's, which
can also vary. These are not identical.

2) Assuming the rating performance of a player conforms to a Normal
Distribution, and the standard deviation is 200, the probability of
a
player having a performance = their rating + 111 is roughly 29%

False. A correctly done calculation of that type might be relevant
for a single game, not a match.

Even if my analysis is inferior to other systems, I want to verify
that
my basic premise is correct please.

It is somewhere between completely wrong and incomplete.
Not knowing probability isn't a crime. However, many have
laid out the problem correctly and yet you seem to be
doing everything in your power to keep your mind shut
tight.

This thread is the perfect example of why George John has created so
many problems for the USCF.

More than half dozen different posters have told George John that he
is dead wrong. George John refuses to listen..He insists that he must
consult an "expert". This matter is covered in the first two weeks of
any basic freshman class in statistics, but a person who has not taken
that two week class might imagine that George John knows what he is
writing about.

Similarly, in the past, George John has been able to pull the wool
over the eyes of the computer illiterates who have been in the USCF
board. George John is personally responsible for the huge financial
losses the USCF has suffered because of George John's wrong advice.

Sam Sloan