Author: Chessfun
Date: 11:05:38 01/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 2000 at 13:40:02, Ed Schröder wrote: >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 141800010 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 As has been seen by some of the threads in the last couple of weeks a lot of people can and do believe such a thing. FYI (I am not one of them) IMHO at 30/all as in Frankfurt, I am even then not convinced that were they to compete with GM's regularly at those time controls that they (comps) would be able t6o stay in the top 50. Thanks.
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.