3 ms·
Extra pedantry: you’re of course right that 600 points is somewhat meaningless, given that it’s harder to improve in the higher ratings, but there’s nothing log
by marcusbuffett 5y ago
Extra pedantry: you’re of course right that 600 points is somewhat meaningless, given that it’s harder to improve in the higher ratings, but there’s nothing logarithmic about elo. A 1500 playing a 500 has the same odds as winning as a 2500 playing a 1500, mathematically. You earn the same # of points at higher elo too.
- kthejoker2 5y agoNo, its scale is directly based on log odds - 10 times more likely to win = 400 points higher on ELO. https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1731991/why-does-the-elo-rating-system-work https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1731991/why-does-th...
- neaden 5y agoExtra Extra Pedantry: Lichess doesn't use Elo, it uses Glicko-2 rating system instead.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> there’s nothing logarithmic about elo. A 1500 playing a 500 has the same odds as winning as a 2500 playing a 1500, mathematically. Odds ratios being constant with difference is what you’d expect with a logarithmic scale, with a linear scale you’d expect odds ratios to be constant with the ratio of the ratings. So, you’ve just explained the way in which elo is logarithmic as your evidence that it is not.
- marcusbuffett 5y agoHm you know what that makes some sense, my bad