Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:09:28 02/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 27, 2002 at 09:41:16, Sune Fischer wrote: >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. > That can't possibly be right. When two players play, they have a probability of winning and the Elo formula will increase one player's rating and decrease the others until the difference between their ratings reflects the probability of each winning or losing. But if I play a brick, and I win _every_ game, my rating will climb for _every_ victory. And it doesn't climb by some amount that has a limit of zero at the upper end. It climbs by some positive amount for every win. That spells +infinity... >>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.