Home > Archive > Chess politics > January 2005 > Re: Questions





You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

Author Re: Questions
Vince Hart

2005-01-27, 5:48 pm


Mike Murray wrote:
quote:

> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:54:33 -0600, "Bill Smythe"
> <chichess@beforeRCNafter.com> wrote:
>
Perks[vbcol=seagreen]
period[vbcol=seagreen]
>
should be[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
ratings.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> This cuts to the heart of it.
>
> 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.
>


That may be true in theory, but by the time you get to the second
degree of separation, I think the effect is going to be almost too
small to identify. Eventually, the extra points would just diffuse
their way out into the rating pool.

Vince Hart

Copyright 2003 - 2009 gamesreviews.net Software forum  PC Hardware reviews