Please use this board to discuss Tournaments and Team Tournaments, ask questions and hopefully find the answers you are looking for. Personal attacks, arguing or baiting will not be tolerated on this board. If you have, or see a problem or something you are not happy about or think is wrong, please contact one of the above Moderators OR contact a Global Moderator HERE
Liste des forums de discussions
Vous n'êtes pas autorisé de poster des messages dans ce forum. Le niveau d'adhésion minimal requis pour poster dans ce forum est Cavalier.
Aganju: 1) the perfect chess player does not exist, no one could manage not lost a game. so no one is perfect. that is true! 2) my nick is computeropponent, actually i don't use computer program, i hate it. what i mean is that my opponent my be using computer. 3) the BKR is inflated figure. i am an unrated chess player, i have beat my opponent Lightbug with 1868 BKR very easy. i was rated abt 1580 long x ago (more than 20 yrs) so i come up with this number. FIDE rating = BKR - (500 to 700) i can tell you that a true 2000+ is a master rating.
computeropponen: FYI, the BKR never claimed to be mappable in any way to FIDE ratings. It follow a rather simple rule that only result in a relative difference; the absolute value has no meaning. Typically, games where a lot of people play, the ratings spread out very far (see Ludo or Runs); games where only a small number of people play, 1512 is already a top-10 rating (Portuguese Checkers). That is just a consequence of the definition.
I agree that 2000+ in Chess is probably about a FIDE master rating. Which implies that we have about 155 FIDE masters plus cheaters here.
modifié par Justaminute (3. Octobre 2013, 12:49:58)
An analysis of BKRs simply indicates grades get inflated with activity For example if you look at the most popular and least popular games on the site (based on the current number of games being played) you get the following:
(a) No of established grades (b) Top Grade (c) Number of grades over 2000 (d) % over 2000
Most Popular
1 Ludo (a) 327 (b) 2350 (c) 222 (d) 68%
2 Backgammon (a) 670 (b) 2634 (c) 571 (d) 85%
3 Chess (a) 513 (b) 2717 (c) 162 (d) 32%
Least Popular
1 Alquerque (a) 19 (b) 2030 (c) 2 (d) 11%
2 Jarmo (a) 25 (b) 1713 (c)0 (d) 0%
3One Way checkers (a) 11 (b)1873 (c) 0 (d) 0%
You have to be a very strong player (or have a very strong computer) in an unpopular game to get a grade of over 2000. You would need to win a lot of games and have a perfect record. Compare that with backgammon where 85% of grades are over 2000. You are almost guaranteed to have a grade of over 2000 with a half decent record because everyone you play against has a grade of over 2000. Do the statistics indicate there are lots of chess computers being used? Not to me. Yes the top grade is higher than Ludo and Backgammon but the number of grades over 2000 is a much smaller percentage of the total population. If a high grade indicates cheating then there is a lot more going on in Backgammon and Ludo, which I would have thought was impossible. The conclusion I draw is that 1. Grades across games are not comparable. 2. Grades are inflationary 3. There will be no correlation between a BKR and a FIDE grade. Why is the system inflationary? I don’t know but I guess it has something to do with good players staying on in the system and weak players not. For example if 2 players with a 1500 grade play, the winner gets say 1600 and the loser gets 1400. The loser stops playing and drops out of the system. The winner carries on playing and the average grade is now 1600.
(Cacher) Vous souhaitez jouer plus de parties mais vous avez du mal à décider quel jeu comencer? Inscrivez-vous à un tournoi de jeux aléatoires. (pauloaguia) (Montrer toutes les astuces)