Author: John Warfield
Date: 16:36:54 12/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 1999 at 23:16:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 21, 1999 at 21:23:57, Graham Laight wrote: > >>On December 21, 1999 at 18:10:05, Fernando Villegas wrote: >> >>>On December 21, 1999 at 13:15:11, Graham Laight wrote: >>> >>>>I apologise for bringing up a subject which has undoubtedly already been >>>>discussed, but according to the SSDF ratings, Chess Tiger is 2696. >>>> >>>>According to the FIDE ratings, there are only 11 players in the world with a >>>>higher rating than this. >>>> >>>>Can this possibly be correct? >>>> >>>>Graham >>> >>>As it has been said before, Elo rating between computers are valid in he >>>communuty of computers and has a not very clear and perhaps definitively dark >>>relation with Elo of human players. In fact, there is not any known method to >>>determinate that relation, until now. Only guesses. If monkeys played chess, >>>they too would have an elo rating, but I am sure you would not equate the elo of >>>Sheeta with that of Gary. Sorry for the monkeys >>>Fernando >> >>If monkeys could play chess, their Elo rating would be very low - so they would >>be comparable to Gary. Monkey Elo would probably be about 100, Gary's is over >>2800. >> > > >not true. If the monkeys _only_ play other monkeys, some could easily have >ratings over 2800. Of course that would have nothing to do with FIDE >ratings... > > >>Following the link on Albert Silver's post to the previous discussion, it >>appears that Albert (and others) are saying the same thing - that because you're >>not comparing like with like, the computer Elo ratings are not valid. > >No, that isn't what he said. He said that computer (SSDF) ratings are >perfectly valid. But they have _nothing_ to do with FIDE ratings. Other >than both are 4 digit base ten numbers. The monkey rating would have nothing >to do with either of these either, unless the monkeys played in the same pool >of players with one of the two groups (FIDE players or SSDF-tested computer >programs). > > > >> >>I have yet to be convinced, I'm afraid. Firstly, on their web site, SSDF say >>they have done some research to ensure that their rating ranges are reasonably >>accurate. In the past, for example, they have used the Aegon tournament to check >>the validity of their rating ranges. >> >>Secondly, much of the argument revolved around the idea that computers are prone >>to making moves which are weak from the positional perspective - and that only 1 >>such weak move is needed to lose a game with a grandmaster. However, I would >>question this for the following reasons: >> >>* Computers have a remarkably good ability to survive the resulting "crushing" >>attacks. Sometimes, when they find an escape, they are able to go on and win the >>game >> >>* IMs and above tend to divide themselves into "active" players (e.g. Maurice >>Ashley) and "positional" players (e.g. Yasser Sierewan, Anatoly Karpov). >>Certainly players like Yasser were, in the past, able to beat computers (Yasser >>is a previous winner of Aegon). But players like Kasparov (who tends to lose to >>computers) must have all (or most) of the positional players' knowledge, because >>his Elo rating is so much higher than theirs. > > >Kasparov doesn't tend to lose to computers, excepting one match vs DB. > > > >> >>To organise another Aegon style tournament would probably cost about $120,000 >>and it's entirely possible that, because IBM have basically milked much of the >>publicity available for human v computer chess, that sponsorship would be very >>difficult to obtain. So, for the time being, we're stuck with jumping on every >>little scrap of information to try to create a (moving) picture of what the >>reality of the ratings is like. >> >>Graham > > >Ed is providing some reasonable data, although it is taking time to get enough >games to draw conclusions. But at least in another year or so we will have >some vague notion about the FIDE rating Rebel might be playing at. Why would you use the Word "vague" after another year of Games? If Rebel doesn't have a fide rating which is definitive after two years total of playing, then it is not possible to rate anything. Why is it that the uscf accepts as valid a rating of a human after 20 games, but the same principle not be applied to Rebel? Twenty games is enough for uscf , why not for Rebel?
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.