Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 06:41:16 02/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 27, 2002 at 09:09:05, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 27, 2002 at 06:33:17, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On February 26, 2002 at 14:35:32, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>The difference in elo in order to win a match 2*10^1000-1 is certainly finite >>>and I believe that choosing a random move is going to be enough for better score >>>because I believe that it is possible to get at least a draw in less than 500 >>>moves and the probability to be lucky and choose every one of them is more than >>>1/100 in every move because I believe that the number of moves in every ply is >>>going to be less than 100 when the opponent choose the perfect strategy. >> >>Yes I agree, but much depends on what the *chess-tree* really lookes like. >>Maybe black has a forced draw in 30 moves? Maybe the forced draw is really 2000 >>moves? As you have previously pointet out yourself, the longer the game, the >>greater the chance that the weaker player will make a mistake. This will >>probably correlate directly to the rating of the perfect player, can he drag the >>game on forever his rating will be much higher. >> >>>It suggest the following question >>>suppose that A has rating 0(I believe that the player who choose random move >>>will have rating that is lower than 0). >>> >>>suppose B wins against A 2*10^1000-1 >>> >>>What is going to be the rating of B based on the elo formula? >>>This rating is probably an upper bound for the rating of the perfect player >>>if you assume that the perfect player plays only against A. >>> >>>Uri >> >>Why should it be an upper bound? >>Your rating should be a constant no matter who you play, if your opponent is >>weak you will win more games, but your expected score will also be that much >>higher. >> >>-S. > >The rating is dependent in the opponet that the perfect player chooses to play. No it is not, look at the formula, it is a normal distribution. >The perfect player may get 100% against my program on p800 because my program is >a deteministic program that always does the same mistake so if you assume the >perfect player plays only against my program then the perfect player is going to >get infinite rating. Your program is deterministic by your own words, so must score even worse than one doing random moves. >The perfect player may get 100% against a player with a rating of 2000 when the >same player is going to fail to get 100% against a player that is clearly weaker >but not deterministic. Please do not ignore the small differences in probability, they are important. A 2000 elo player may be beaten by 10^30:1 and a 1000 elo player by 10^35:1, it should all add up to the same rating for the perfect player, that is how the elo table works. >Uri -S.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.