| petrelet@sbcglobal.net 2005-01-27, 5:48 pm |
|
Mike Murray wrote:
quote:
> However, given that the ratings in question probably influenced the
> computation of other ratings, i.e., of players not involved in the
> controversy, cascading onward, AND that the players in the
controversy
quote:
> played in subsequent events, it appears unlikely the impact of these
> events could ever be fully expunged.
Well, actually, if the players affected continued to be active in rated
play, the effects would be "fully expunged" with the passage of time,
and more quickly than most people would guess. I worked out some
simulations a couple years ago for the purpose of dealing with rare
situations on the ICC where a game result ought to have been voided. A
player might want 32 rating points back for an unjustified loss, say,
but if five or ten games had been played in the interim, the numerical
effect of the problem would already be almost completely washed out.
The point is that if your rating is "too low", then you gain more from
your wins and lose less from your losses, and if it is "too high", then
you gain less from your wins and lose more from your losses, so the
system heals itself, and the effects of any initial disturbance become
lost in the random variations that effect everyone's rating.
Of course, rating floors are an exception to this.
petrel
|