Rating the Chess Rating System¶
Glickman, M. E., & Jones, A. C. (1999). Rating the Chess Rating System. Chance, 12(2), 21-28.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Evaluative Rating
- The slot-by-slot pathologies are all instantiated and named. Scale drift: rating inflation across a pool over time, where the same number means a different strength than it did a decade earlier — the scale slot slipping. Rater-pool drift: a player who only plays a narrow, unrepresentative set of opponents gets a rating that does not generalize — the rater base corrupting the signal. Use drift: an Elo number computed for matchmaking pressed into service as an absolute "is this a master?" credential it was never validated for.
This sourceStatistical analysis of the Elo chess rating system, including the pairwise-outcome inference model and the rating-pool calibration problems (inflation/deflation) that arise when the scale drifts over time.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Source shows ratings from isolated opponent pools generalize poorly and that rating-pool averages drift (mainly deflation), but never discusses use-drift or misuse of Elo as a 'master' credential.
“One of the fundamental problems with using the rating system as a predictor of performance is that it is only accurate on a within-region level.”
- The slot-by-slot pathologies are all instantiated and named. Scale drift: rating inflation across a pool over time, where the same number means a different strength than it did a decade earlier — the scale slot slipping. Rater-pool drift: a player who only plays a narrow, unrepresentative set of opponents gets a rating that does not generalize — the rater base corrupting the signal. Use drift: an Elo number computed for matchmaking pressed into service as an absolute "is this a master?" credential it was never validated for.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:92af5227f377 · see in the full table