| David Kane 2005-04-11, 5:59 pm |
|
"George John" <george@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:1112635111.039577.255590@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Overall, I agree with this. One minor nit pick is the score (BTW, I
> prefer score to winning) expectancy curve is never linear.
All curves are linear if you expand the scale enough. I think
in usual class tournaments (+/- 100) there wouldn't be a significant
error using a linear approximation.
quote:
> WRT performance ratings, I should also mention the online calculator
> gets into minor trouble when there is a perfect score since the
> expected rating is always less than one. For example, if a player
wins
quote:
> 4 games against all 1000 rated players, what is the performance
rating?
quote:
> It really could be anything, say 1400 or higher. The online
> calculator comes up with 1400, since 400 is commonly accepted, but
> there is no truly satisfactory way to do this, SFAIK.
Interestingly,
quote:
> sometimes the performance rating at 1/2 point less than perfect is
> higher than using the 400 number! For example, try 8 opponents with
> ratings of 2299. With a score of 8 the PR is 2699; 7.5, 2769.
>
I have a half-baked speculation that a more meaningful
performance rating in the case of a perfect score would
be to replace the actual result with something very close
to it (e.g. assume that a score of 8 in your above example
is really a 7.75 rounded up)
|