Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 10:40:02 01/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 2000 at 13:25:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 05, 2000 at 10:53:50, Bertil Eklund wrote: > >>On January 05, 2000 at 09:45:04, Chris Carson wrote: >> >>>For ELO measurements (FIDE, PCA, SSDF or combined). Would a computer >>>(or perhaps a person) get a higher rating in a tournament than in >>>a match? >>> >>>My opinion is that a tournament is a better predictor of strength >>>than a match. My reason (not based on any facts, it would be an >>>interesting study) is that in a tournament a person (or machine) would >>>face a broader range of styles than in a match. In a match, the person >>>or computer might face an opponent that just plain does well against >>>him/her/it (Even Fisher had a nimises). Also, in match play, each >>>player can book up on the opponent and may get an advantage that might >>>not be there in a tournament (more players to worry about). >>> >>>So, I think a tournament is a better measure of strength than a match. >>> >>>Second question: Would computer ratings benifit more from tournament >>>play than match play? I vote that tournament play would produce higher >>>(more accurate) ratings for computers against people than match play. >>> >>>Just my two cents. :) >>> >>>Best Regards, >>>Chris Carson >>Hi! >> >>You are right humans plays a lot better in single game matches and that is the >>main reason between the discrepance between the SSDF-list and these matches >>often with increment or double-increment time-controls. >> >>Regards Bertil SSDF > > >Here I still disagree. The SSDF list is simply grossly inflated. Programs are >not playing at a 2700 level, if by 2700 the word "FIDE" comes to mind. The lack >of human competition over the last 7-8 years has caused this, as >machine-vs-machine ratings tend to get exaggerated. I can't count the number of >times I have made small changes to crafty that would cause version N+1 to beat >version N by a 60-40 margin, yet the rating remained _exactly_ the same on ICC. > >Most versions will beat the earlier versions by significant margins, yet the >overall skill level gain (against humans) is lower than what is suggested by >taking the win/lose/draw score and running it thru the Elo formula. > >As I have said before, the pools are totally different. The ratings are not >comparable in any fashion until the two pools of players are merged and mingled >enough that they can be treated equally. I say amen to that. How can anybody believe nowadays chess programs can compete with players like: 6 2209390 Shirov, Alexei 2722 ESP g 13 7 2000024 Kamsky, Gata 2720 USA g 0 8 2805677 Gelfand, Boris 2713 ISR g 24 9 4100026 Karpov, Anatoly 2709 RUS g 9 10 400041 Adams, Michael 2705 ENG g 48 11 14100010 Ivanchuk, Vassily 2702 UKR g 27 12 703303 Leko, Peter 2699 HUN g 14 13 2900084 Topalov, Veselin 2695 BUL g 36 on 40/2? Maybe they can on 30/all but 40/2? Ed
This page took 0.02 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.