| George John 2005-04-11, 5:59 pm |
| Angelo De Pa1ma wrote:
Angelo,
[SNIP]
quote:
> I think I get it now. It is indeed much harder for me to draw five
times
quote:
> against 2300 players than to achieve the result I obtained. I guess
your
quote:
> formula prevents people from getting huge ratings by playing much
weaker
quote:
> players.
Just to be certain there is no misunderstanding, the formulas used to
compute rating changes are the USCF's and not mine.
The USCF doesn't publish 'performance ratings'. The calculation method
using +400/0/-400 & opponents' ratings is a good hand calculation way
to estimate performance ratings, but I think the calculator provides a
better way to do this; although, it uses a method that would be VERY
time consuming to do by hand or even using a non-programmable,
hand-held scientific calculator.
The online calculator performance rating calculation uses exactly the
same formula the USCF uses to calculate 'expected scores' for
non-provisional players. All I have done is write a 'search' algorithm
that finds the rating which has an expected total score closest to the
actual total score.
So, WRT to your 2005 USATE performance, a 2300 rating was most likely
to score 4.5 against opponents with the ratings you faced, (IOW, had
the estimated score closest to actual).
[SNIP]
|