Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender: 
Posts: 5928
|
 |
Re: Evidence of inaccurate ratings
« Reply #15 on: Jun 19th, 2005, 10:33am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Jun 16th, 2005, 12:11pm, Arimanator wrote:| If you don't mind my opinion I believe that the ratings would be a lot more accurate, whatever formula is applied, if instead of being changed after each game they were changed instead after several, 5 for example |
|
If I recall correctly, the fellow who designed the American Go Association ratings arrived at the same conclusion. And I definitely agree that one problem with Arimaa ratings is that they are too volatile. It is interesting to note, however, that the overly-volatile ratings of the the Internet Chess Club (ICC) were much inferior to the less-volatile ratings of the Free Internet Chess Server (FICS), but that the players on FICS didn't like having more accurate ratings. Bowing to popular demand, the administration of FICS abritrarily gimmicked their more-accurate rating formula to make the rating swings larger!
Anyway, having each game account for a swing of up to 30 points (at the most stable level) is somewhat wild compared to chess ratings where the most stable level is a swing of 16 points. And I believe it can be mathematically proven that having greater volatility leads to greater rating inaccuracy.
That said, I believe selection of time controls and selection of opponents are the biggest issues causing rating problems right now. If the ratings moved only after every five games, or if they moved every game by a smaller amount, either way Omar would be vastly under-rated due to all the blitz games he has lost recently. And bot-bashing to gain an inflated rating would perhaps take a little longer with reduced volatility, but it would be just as feasible. So I'd put damping the large swings in ratings on the list of things to fix with the system, but probably not at the top of the list.
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print
Author
IP Logged