one million
candidates are easy to find, but blacks defense very hard to calculate
i think it may get shaved a little off the top as the most direct approach to the king is best
i think it may get shaved a little off the top as the most direct approach to the king is best
20 points cause its easy
Not easy!
I think the rating is more or less ok for this puzzle. I admit it took me a very long time to visualize in the starting position that the second move is going to be legal, but then the rest was manageable to calculate.
SEVEN!
It gave me 7 measly points!
It gave me 7 measly points!
the increment is calculated using the distance between your rating and the puzzle rating before "both" playing the "game".
the quote are because this is how the Glicko-2 rating system used here in lichess for normal games outcome given both players starting ratings (AND their Rating deviation). to attract attention on the similarities.
I do not know the rating deviation of the puzzle though.... There is a formula on wikipedia... that explains how the credit per win or lose is attributed to each players (here you and the puyzzle). it helps to look at how they separated the components.
Or somebody more agile in translatiing mathemtical things into words could perhaps translate it.. I suggest putting m=1 as here it is not a tounrament or series of m games, but one game event, and immediate update for both player from outcome.
They isolate the post-game gain using the variables i just mentioned.. Use the glicko2 section, it is even less crowed with math clutter that the first version.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glicko_rating_system#Glicko-2_algorithm
If symbolic mathematical equations are not readable or telling to you, there is a more often shared computational looking example of caculation in a pdf... http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko2.pdf
This is also the first 2 results from google. I better understood the symbolic versions, but people who have to implementat that in computers, find the pdf more explanatory, an impression i gathered.
There is also the founding statistcal journal types of academic papers that give the mathematical foundations for these caculations that handle more of the dynamics (or kinetic) properties of competitive pairing based game events histories (or time series, or trajectories, in a given pool of players).
the quote are because this is how the Glicko-2 rating system used here in lichess for normal games outcome given both players starting ratings (AND their Rating deviation). to attract attention on the similarities.
I do not know the rating deviation of the puzzle though.... There is a formula on wikipedia... that explains how the credit per win or lose is attributed to each players (here you and the puyzzle). it helps to look at how they separated the components.
Or somebody more agile in translatiing mathemtical things into words could perhaps translate it.. I suggest putting m=1 as here it is not a tounrament or series of m games, but one game event, and immediate update for both player from outcome.
They isolate the post-game gain using the variables i just mentioned.. Use the glicko2 section, it is even less crowed with math clutter that the first version.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glicko_rating_system#Glicko-2_algorithm
If symbolic mathematical equations are not readable or telling to you, there is a more often shared computational looking example of caculation in a pdf... http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko2.pdf
This is also the first 2 results from google. I better understood the symbolic versions, but people who have to implementat that in computers, find the pdf more explanatory, an impression i gathered.
There is also the founding statistcal journal types of academic papers that give the mathematical foundations for these caculations that handle more of the dynamics (or kinetic) properties of competitive pairing based game events histories (or time series, or trajectories, in a given pool of players).
@Onyx_Chess said in #9:
> Thanks for the explanation.
I think on lichess itself, there are texts somewhere in the FAQ, about rating systems..
i think my explanation should have been that puzzle is a like a player, and playing a puzzle is like a time control or variant with its own pool of players, and then refer you to the faq of lichess for their explanation general of all pairing game events here on lichess.
you then just replace opponent player, with puzzle ID... and you would get a relevant worded explanation..
a nice complement or first place to look at, with the fact that you just have to consider the puzzle as a player opponent.. you win it loses (no draws here). Thanks for thanking me.. That is generous.
The faq link on lobby page with the source code etc... type of links..
> Thanks for the explanation.
I think on lichess itself, there are texts somewhere in the FAQ, about rating systems..
i think my explanation should have been that puzzle is a like a player, and playing a puzzle is like a time control or variant with its own pool of players, and then refer you to the faq of lichess for their explanation general of all pairing game events here on lichess.
you then just replace opponent player, with puzzle ID... and you would get a relevant worded explanation..
a nice complement or first place to look at, with the fact that you just have to consider the puzzle as a player opponent.. you win it loses (no draws here). Thanks for thanking me.. That is generous.
The faq link on lobby page with the source code etc... type of links..
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.