1522
2110, very close.
Ending test was also great, 47/48 points, however no estimation for ELO.
Ending test was also great, 47/48 points, however no estimation for ELO.
1652 the test was very good
I got 1940, the test is probably not very accurate (if at all)
1757,
The test is probably not very accurate as in the last tourney I played (about a year and a half ago) my performance rating was 1466, I can't have improved that much!
The test is probably not very accurate as in the last tourney I played (about a year and a half ago) my performance rating was 1466, I can't have improved that much!
1975 It's a very good test.
2245 - I have no idea, I haven't played a rated tournament game in 3 years!
<Comment deleted by user>
Loved the test, hated the survey. :P
"1625, with a 95% confidence interval of [1407...1843]" close enough!
"1625, with a 95% confidence interval of [1407...1843]" close enough!
I chose not to complete it because I found myself analysing the intent of the people who set it up. Consider this:
1. They could easily have used the more common merida type boards, but they *chose* to use that almost sketch-like black and white board.
2. They also chose to utilise an unrealistic time control when analysing each position.
3. They're not with the Comp. Sci. or Mathematics departments, they're with the Psychology Department.
The pseudo-ELO rating is not the primary focus of this application, it's studying the response types of the volunteer lab rats for an as yet undetermined purpose. As for that number you're posting here, that's the cheese they fed the lab rats.
The only thing remaining is whether or not I care enough to actually dig into what they're really after ... nah, there are better things to do. Besides, I've got an ELO for the correspondence games and the two federations (ICCF and FIDE) usually suggest the difference to OTB is found by knocking off 50 to 100 points (I suspect it might be more like 100 to 200, but who cares).
1. They could easily have used the more common merida type boards, but they *chose* to use that almost sketch-like black and white board.
2. They also chose to utilise an unrealistic time control when analysing each position.
3. They're not with the Comp. Sci. or Mathematics departments, they're with the Psychology Department.
The pseudo-ELO rating is not the primary focus of this application, it's studying the response types of the volunteer lab rats for an as yet undetermined purpose. As for that number you're posting here, that's the cheese they fed the lab rats.
The only thing remaining is whether or not I care enough to actually dig into what they're really after ... nah, there are better things to do. Besides, I've got an ELO for the correspondence games and the two federations (ICCF and FIDE) usually suggest the difference to OTB is found by knocking off 50 to 100 points (I suspect it might be more like 100 to 200, but who cares).
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.