ELO Reset

Terralthra · Post by **Terralthra** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:44 am

tmc wrote:QUOTE (tmc @ Sep 2 2006, 02:01 PM) But an autobalance button would not prevent this problem greator, since the autobalance would also see everyone as equal.

What you're referring to is a problem deeply rooted within ELO, and has nothing to do with this particular reset.

They would only be able to stack for a couple games each. I went through it in a thread in gameplay, but basically it would not take more than 10-12 games for each player (running in parallel, naturally) before the gains for the more skilled players and the losses for the less skilled players prevent them from stacking and allow the system to begin working as intended.

tmc · Post by **tmc** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:51 am

Terralthra wrote:QUOTE (Terralthra @ Sep 2 2006, 02:44 AM) They would only be able to stack for a couple games each. I went through it in a thread in gameplay, but basically it would not take more than 10-12 games for each player (running in parallel, naturally) before the gains for the more skilled players and the losses for the less skilled players prevent them from stacking and allow the system to begin working as intended.

Exactly. So regardless of whether we have an autobalance button or not, the system should converge. Autobalancing would not prevent a stack, since it doesnt know whos good at that point.

Post by **Tigereye** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:08 am

Tmc...

Can you define 'converge' for me? I'm wondering if we've been talking about the wrong thing all along... it might explain some of the disputes people are having in this thread.

--TE

tmc · Post by **tmc** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:16 am

converge - as time goes to infinity, the rate of change of people's ELO values goes to zero.

CronoDroid · Post by **CronoDroid** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:20 am

Personally, I think this reset was a long time coming.

Well done Dev Team. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

Terralthra · Post by **Terralthra** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:08 am

tmc wrote:QUOTE (tmc @ Sep 2 2006, 06:16 PM) converge - as time goes to infinity, the rate of change of people's ELO values goes to zero.

The problem is that convergence is not the same as accuracy.

tmc · Post by **tmc** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:22 am

Indeed, ELO might converge but be completely wrong (for example, making all scores permanently constant at 1500 would achieve this). This is a seperate issue. When talking about convergence, we assume that ELO, well, actually works. Does it really? Hard to say. The only real way to find out is to wait a few months and check the rankings.

Falnyx · Post by **Falnyx** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:22 pm

tmc wrote:QUOTE (tmc @ Sep 2 2006, 03:16 AM) converge - as time goes to infinity, the rate of change of people's ELO values goes to zero.

Or perhaps better stated, the rate of change of people's elo values go to some small, non-zero number, accounting for the fact that most people are going to improve at least gradually over time. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

zarcain · Post by **zarcain** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:49 pm

well, I went from an 8 to a 21. I am definately not that good.

jgbaxter · Post by **jgbaxter** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:36 pm

Hey tmc, speaking of converging, how do you feel about weighted k-factors, such that a novice might adjust 100% of elo, inter 75%, vet 50%, exp 25%... the fluctuation also is reduced, this is a standard practice for most elo systems...