Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:04:59 02/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2005 at 09:18:29, Michael Yee wrote: >On February 21, 2005 at 04:52:56, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 21, 2005 at 00:17:09, Michael Yee wrote: >> >>>On February 20, 2005 at 10:39:47, stuart taylor wrote: >>> >>>>On February 20, 2005 at 10:36:22, stuart taylor wrote: >>>> >>>>>http://web.telia.com/~u85924109/ssdf/list.htm (any better?) >>>>> >>>>>According to this most recent ssdf list, doesn't it look like the past 2 >>>>>Shredders are the biggest challenges? >>>>>Not only that, but often, Shredder 7.04 got better results even than Shredder 8, >>>>>and here, it is only one point behind, which is nothing. >>>>>So the question is, has Shredder 9 got out of that hole, and become more >>>>>noticeably better, or not? >>>>>And, not always have upgrades of chess programs been stronger. >>>>>S.Taylor >>> >>>The CSS rating list shows Shredder getting stronger with each version: >>> >>>http://www.computerschach.com/rangliste/rangliste_ewig_ssdf.htm >>> >>>Different lists just show that computer chess has some randomness and it can >>>take a while for accurate strength estimates. >>> >>>Also, I think there are some subtle biases in the elo system that depend on the >>>strength difference between opponents. See, e.g., >>> >>>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=562 >> >>Thanks for that link. >> >>Some of these ideas are used by the israeli chess federation for years but I do >>not like them. >> >>1)Using the linear formula: >>Surprise is always possible so it is never logical to give 0 points to the >>winner. >> >>You can claim that there is a better formula but we should try to find the best >>formula and not linear formula. >> >>2)Using faster time control at the same rating. >>It is done in Israel for some years and I think that it is not fair because >>there are players who perform worse at faster time control. >> >>I played in the past in some tournaments at fast time control (30 minutes per >>game) and from experience I always lost rating in them. >> >>Results is simply that I stopped playing at them and I guess that my rating at >>30 minute/game is probably 100-200 elo smaller than my rating at long time >>control. >> >>Uri > >With respect to (2), I guess the idea is that using more data (even if noisy) >can improve your estimators. It allows you to use some general trends from the >population (e.g., that good rapid play tends to correlate with good long play) >to hopefully remove some error from an individual's estimate. In fact, you could >also other marginally related data like "rating of your father" which could >possibly improve predictive accuracy some very small amount. > >What I find interesting is that since you know your own true strengtht pretty >well, you know for yourself that using the extra information nudged your rating >in the wrong direction! > >Michael the conclusion that I am relatively weaker at fast time control is based on experience. I think that the main reason for the difference is the simple fact that I cannot play blindfold. People who can play blindfold do not need to look at the board to see things when I need to do it. This is not a big problem at long time control when I have time to look at the board but at fast time control it is a problem. Uri
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.