How am I so good?
Sort:
Jul 9, 2017
0
#22
That is not exponential decay. No idea what that is, but exponential decay is y=a(b)^x where b > 1.
ha! Will is trolling us.
but given where I am -
where am I SO surprised?
I've forgotten how ridiculous this place is. remember Will to put it on your profile and refer to it often.
Will, Future World Champion
wouldn't be the first guy to say that.
Jul 9, 2017
0
#26
will_n wrote:
That is not exponential decay. No idea what that is, but exponential decay is y=a(b)^x where b > 1.
https://people.richland.edu/james/lecture/m116/logs/models.html
here is the reference
Jul 9, 2017
0
#27
thegreat_patzer wrote:
universityofpawns wrote:
not too bright either: 4 X 900=3600 where I come from?
also missed the fact that a bare beginner is NOT 0.
instead 100 is as low as you can go- and it is usually VERY much a rating for young kids. VERY young kids.
They actually used to start you at 800 (average beginner) and some sites up to 1200 (average beginning club player) I think, so 900 is not all that hot
As a math nerd myself, I can tell you that @will_n doesn't know the first thing about math. First of all, exponential growth f(x) = a(b)^x doesn't fit the typical pattern of chess improvement, and neither does exponential decay f(x) = a(b)^-x = a/b^x, which actually indicates a decrease. Rather, the typical rating curve is a logarithmic function f(x) = a log x, and for simplicity let's make it f(x) = a ln x. Then d/dx a ln x = a/x for x > 0, or for less mathematically inclined ears, the benefit of spending time on chess is inversely proportional to the total amount you've spent on it already. This is why breaking 1800 is massively harder than breaking 900: at 900, you have spent probably 50-100 hours on chess in total, but to get to 1800 you will have to spend multiple thousands of hours on chess to get the same effect as those first 50.
It's exponential, but decay:
Exponential Decay (increasing form)
y = C ( 1 - e-kt ), k > 0
Features