Of course there is no perfect rating system. I'm probably obsessing over nothing, there is no overwhelming deficiency of CGOS over other rating systems, but all of them suffer from the transitivity problem, I don't think any of them address that.
Most "weirdness" that you see with CGOS is either imagined, or based on intransivities. There has always been some suspicion that the anchor is not "heavy" enough but it's hard to prove. If this is the case, the solution is to use more than 1 anchor which at times we have done. There is also some evidence that when I changed the starting rating for programs by lowering it, the anchor was not able to quickly compensate for the extra ELO point deflation and we had a recession. Based on this suspicion I changed it again a few months ago to be a less drastic change over the previous starting value. - Don Petr Baudis wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 03:40:28PM -0700, Christoph Birk wrote: > >> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Matthew Woodcraft wrote: >> >>> It might be that most of those games aren't visible to the rating >>> system. >>> >> That might explain why a rating system may have a hard time >> to follow. >> Bad data in ... bad data out :-) >> > > But the point is that bad data is what you have in the real life. :-) > > Petr "Pasky" Baudis > _______________________________________________ > 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/
