Quote:
Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery
This suggests a problem with your methodology. Instead of trying to fit the numbers to a fixed increase in the chance of winning, maybe you should just compromise between that goal, and a table that looks reasonable.
|
Not basing the skill on the probability in the rating system would defeat the purpose of this rating to skill transformation. Though for the sake of simplicity, I did round the numbers in my two latest posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grouchy Chris
I think that you could reasonably argue that top skills in chess will be higher than top skills in other fields, for a few reasons. First, chess is a very narrowly focused field, with no ancillary skills or techniques to support it -- the measure of skill at chess is just Games(chess). Second, chess is easier to train at than a lot of other skills, since there are no great requirements for equipment or facilities, and competitive tournaments are easy to find from very early in a chess player's career. Third, chess is highly prestigious and is played seriously throughout a great portion of the world, and so it's going to attract a much larger field of competitors than, say, croquet.
Put these three factors together and I think you could justify a skill of 26 or maybe even more for the best of all time.
|
I've considered some of these issues too and though I think that it seems to give excessively high skills, perhaps that is the solution.
Though Purple Haze has still not backed up his claim that 800 is the default adult level.