Thanks Peter I don't have 'ratings of style' for these players and option (2) that you suggest isnt' an option for me. The closest I come to a rating of style would be the information contained in the head-to-head in association with the ELO ratings, which should implicitly account for the 'average strength' (ELO) and the the 'compartive strength of style' plus average strength(head to head).
J. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Flom) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... > This is an intersting question. > > I see two ways you could continue. > > 1) If you have some rating(s) of 'style' for each of the 600 players, > you could use those ratings, or perhaps some interaction of them, as a > covariate How exactly you would do this depends on what the ratings of > style are like, and what your exact hypothesis is. > > 2) Lacking such ratings of style, you might try to derive some. > Assuming that these 600 players are top grandmasters, then you MIGHT be > able to do something with multidimensional scaling. What this would > require is getting a bunch of people to rate how 'similar' different > players are. The trouble is, with 600 people to rate, you'd need a lot > of raters, and they'd have to be knowldegable enough to give sensible > ratings of the players. Perhaps this is doable; you might try > contacting a bunch of very knowldgable players and offering them money > to do the job. > > > HTH > > Peter . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
