Author: Albert Silver
Date: 05:48:28 01/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 2000 at 05:13:17, Graham Laight wrote:
>On January 04, 2000 at 18:37:12, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>On January 04, 2000 at 18:19:18, Graham Laight wrote:
>>
>>>On January 04, 2000 at 13:17:14, Albert Silver wrote:
>>>
>>>>Why would doubling the speed make much of a difference in 40/2? It isn't
>>>>bullheaded, it's logical. So far I believe it is capable of PERFORMING at 2500
>>>>against WEAKER opposition. I am not convinced it will perform the same against
>>>>Grandmasters. If it performs 2500 against 2300 players but 2300 against 2500
>>>>players, it isn't playing at grandmaster strength.
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>>If the last sentence is possible then there's something seriously wrong with the
>>>Elo rating system.
>>
>>I not only believe it is possible, I think it's common. Just as the opposite is
>>common as well, though not among computers.
>>
>> Albert Silver
>
>If Albert is right, then there really is a serious problem with the Elo rating
>system.
>
>In a 10 game match between two 2500 players, the expected score would be 5-5.
>
>Between a 2300 player and a 2500 player, I think it should be about 2.5-7.5 (by
>all means correct me if I'm wrong).
Yes and no. Ratings are an average of performances (and even so subject to
errors). The further up one gets, the more conceptual chess becomes, which is
the basis of positional and strategic play. I agree with Vincent Diepeveen that
the biggest edge 2500 players (human) usually have over their 2300 peers is in
positional play. This means the balance of their weapons is a little different,
and also means that one cannot obviously predict a computer's performance (or
anyone's but most particularly a computer's) against a 2500+ GM based on its
performance against 2300 players. If a player is a strong positional player and
is able to achieve a game where tactics are not the most important element, the
predominantly tactical player will struggle a lot more. I know, as that happens
to me all the time. I am a predominantly tactical player, and my best results
against higher rated players are those where they let the game be tactical. My
most humbling experiences are those where good positional players set up a wall
that I inevitably ran into and was incapable of tearing down. Against players of
similar rating, but more positional in nature, my tactics were able to make up
the difference, as my positional play though weak is hardly non-existent. I
think computers, though at a much higher level, are the same. It isn't about
anti-computer chess, it is just a different approach.
Albert Silver
>
>If, in a large statistical sample, this can be shown to not occur, then we must
>conclude that the Elo rating system does not work, and should be abandoned.
>
>Given that so many organisations have put so much faith in the Elo system, I
>suspect that it does have validity, and that Albert is not entirely correct in
>his belief.
>
>Does anyone out there know how well Professor Elo did his studies, and whether
>any follow up studies were done to check whether his rating system is correct?
>
>-g
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.