Yes, you are right. But gnugo's 1800 rating is the only real point of reference that I have. As you get farther away from 1800 I believe it's the case that the "true" rating can be sloppy.
- Don Sylvain Gelly wrote: > > between pairs > of programs, you can get a more and more confident belief about > the actual ELO. so they'll converge to the correct values, and > should do so reasonably rapidly. > > > You are right. My point was that here we have only 1 fixed rating, > which is very low, and all the higher levels depends on the levels > just below them. So I wondered if the underestimate was propagating > and cumulating, making the top, as you add doublings, more and more > far from the "real" values. It is why I wondered about the curve if we > made "virtual games" between players with fixed "linear" ratings, to > see what the current method would predict (note that all players are > being rated at the same time). > > It was just an hypothesis, it may be totally irrelevant :) > > Sylvain > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
