Morning guys!
Recently I've been captivated with chess and the Elo system that ranks a player's skill.
Although Elo is widely used to evaluate players, it does have shortcomings. Here are a few:
- Elo only converges to your actual rating after many games.
- The metric does not factor in skill degradation when you stop playing.
- Or a home advantage.
- Elo is a relative metric. It only compares the relative skill of people within a group.
- Ex: You can have a high Elo 2800 if you only play against a group of beginners.
- Unfortunately, this score will be dreadfully inaccurate when you face 2800 players on a professional website.
I've been troubled with the last shortcoming. How can we determine someone's skill if their rating is always relative to who they play?
Can we come up with a score that reflects your real ability?
I think that players should play against computers because the skill of a machine is constant. If you can consistently beat a level 6 CPU, then you are at least level 6.
Surprisingly, we are at a time where computers can beat the best competitors in any game. This means that we can use them as opponents of definite skill to catalogue a player's strength.
This week I challenge you to develop a formula that can accurately identify one's ability in a game. I'll be delighted if your evaluation technique considers computer opponents.
I wish you the best of luck. Tackle this week with your A-game.
- Curtis
#4: Chrome Extensions for Messaging Apps | #6: Journaling from the Future