Author: Christopher R. Dorr
Date: 12:19:54 06/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 30, 1999 at 12:16:44, KarinsDad wrote: >On June 30, 1999 at 11:20:54, Pete Galati wrote: > >[snip] >> >>Would somebody pleas explain to me why these ratings are needed? I'm quite sure >>that I have a very narrow focus on the whole thing, but I really don't see what >>they are being used for. If it's a marketing thing, then it does not seem to >>apply well to most programs?-most of which are not comercial as I see it. >> >>Pete > >They are not needed per se. > >However, the idea was mentioned due to the normal rating problems that are >exacerbated on ICC. So, if you had a more tournament-like environment and hence, >tournament-only ratings, it would be more difficult to inflate your tournament >rating, especially for a computer program. It would still be easy to deflate >your tournament rating, just by cheating and playing poorly. And a person could >inflate their tournament rating by cheating and using a computer. But, the >mechanism of using a computer and only playing certain opponents could not be >used to inflate a computer tournament rating. Interesting point, but I doubt that this would help much. The only people on ICC capable of beating the better programs are the *strong* IM/GM types (ICC rated over 2700). They play on ICC, in part, precisely *because* they get to choose who they play. Why would a ICC 2850 want to play in some kind of random tournament, playing 1282s (or even 2282s for that matter)? What would he/she gain? Nothing...so they wouldn't play...so nobody who *would* play would have any realistic chance of challenging a good computer. Hence, the 'tournament blitz' rating of the computer would be meaningless. How much information do we get from the fact that Crafty went 70-0-0 against players rated on average 1950? We already know this. This system would give us no additional information, in my opinion. The players who could give us more information wouldn't play, and those who did play would not allow us to generate meaningful conclusions. I just feel that this kind of rating system is a bad idea from the word go. Chris > >KarinsDad :)
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.