Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 10:40:16 04/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 1999 at 08:19:52, Francois Bertin wrote: >On April 04, 1999 at 03:12:17, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On April 03, 1999 at 21:57:06, odell hall wrote: >>> I set rebel 10's elo at my uscf rating (1810) to see just how realistic the >>>rating are. I played a six game match at game/5. I was soundly crushed every >>>game!!. Do not believe for a minute that the elo settings for rebel are >>>accurate. Rebel plays much stronger than the elo might suggest. I believe with >>>programs getting as strong as they are that a reasonable goal for programmers >>>would be to develop realistic elo settings for their programs. > >>There is a certain limit below which it doesn't go... it might be 1400, it might >>be 1600, I don't know exactly. The lower limit might even depend on the >>hardware you're running on. I propose that you do an experiment: set it to >>1400, see if you start beating it up, or if it is still crushing you. If you >>are still getting crushed then it serves you right for having such a fast >>computer. <grin> (Actually, that was just a joke: I'd expect that the program >>compensates for the machine speed.) > > Not exactly true, Dave. You can set the Elo option at any level you like, >even 800 ;-) I often play Rebel at a time level of 5 sec./move and >Elo 1200-1300 and I have good games, although I still have to actually win >one... (sigh) At that level, I generally get a good position because >the program seems to neglect its king safety, and then I loose because >I typically leave a piece "en prise" or don't see a tactical shot that Rebel >is still able to spot, even at that level. That's on a P100 and of course, >I don't use the regular book; instead, I either select the small book or the >"blunder" book. > > Regards, > François Bertin We have a misunderstanding. While you can set it to 800, it will never play as bad as an 800. There is a limit to its "artificial dumbness". :-) That is what I meant when I said "there is a certain limit below which it doesn't go...". Maybe that limit is 1400, maybe 1600, and as Ed reports, it's certainly much higher than those figures at blitz. I think Ed did get some useful feedback though: now he is aware that people expect the estimated rating to take into account the time control, instead of assuming a 40/2 game. Dave Gomboc
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.