Quote:
Originally Posted by Apache
*sigh*
While I understand the idea of wanting to peg FIDE scores to actual GURPS skill levels, GURPS is just a game, and certain things are abstracted.
In GURPS, a skill level of 14+ makes you an expert, in this case a Master.
Higher levels of skill make you a Grand Master, obviously, but you can't tie them in to a FIDE score.....there are many expert players that don't compete in tournaments...
And I would peg Kasparov around skill level 22-25, myself.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragondog
It should be added that the rating doesn’t rate your actual skill level, it rates how well you’ve played so far. So there may be a discrepancy between your actual skill level and the skill level derived from your rating.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gjc8
Keep in mind the draw, which is quite important for highly skilled players. Elo doesn't give probabilities of winning, but rather expected scores. An expected score of .75 could mean that they have a 75% chance of winning, 25% of losing and 0% of drawing, or it could mean a 50% chance of winning, a 50% chance of drawing and a 0% percent chance of losing.
A regular contest with full normalization is a bad model, especially at the upper end, given the frequency of draws in real chess. The 1984 world championship between Kasparov and Karpov lasted 48 games, with 40 of them draws.
|
I know. I looked into this and as it turns out, using two Regular Contests to allow for draws gives you the exact same expected score as taking the win in one Regular Contest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris1982
Actually I think that in a chess match between masters other factors than straight Games(chess) might have a big effect. For "normal" GURPS games it is totally not interesting but for a campaign focussing on chess I really would include Will rolls, allow for Intimidation to some extent, maybe even split the game into 3 phases (start, midgame, endgame) and allow specializations/techniques for that.
|
Chess is a background thing in the campaign, the character just happens to be a grandmaster. So as I had to look at this anyway, I decided to share, and see what everyone thought.
But I like this. What kind of defaults and maximums would these techniques have?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asta Kask
Remember also familiarity penalties. I would definitely give them for someone playing an opening he's never played before, for instance.
|
This could come in handy in play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraydak
Setting skill level by "best alive" can cause major problems when the population base varies significantly. The modern serious chess-playing population base is vastly greater than in , say, 1500. A factor of 1000 between the two populations seems reasonable. So either 1500s Europe has no "Top Master Alive", or the modern world has many.
This grates on me, as it happens. The modern world spends vast, vast amounts on education, and puts people in learning positions for far, far longer than earlier times. We are also much closer (not that close, just closer) to a legitimate meritocracy. This suggests that modern skill levels in most fields should be significantly higher than comparable skills pre-mass education.
|
I'm using the terms Kromm used in the post I linked to.