Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 11:14:36 01/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 2000 at 14:05:38, Chessfun wrote: >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. Right. 50 1000055 Piket, Jeroen 2625 NED g 44 51 1700014 Andersson, Ulf 2623 SWE g 12 52 13900048 Bologan, Viktor 2620 MDA g 41 53 13500139 Aleksandrov, Aleksej 2619 BLR g 14 54 715620 Chernin, Alexander 2619 HUN g 32 55 14602377 Beliavsky, Alexander G 2618 SLO g 35 56 2000040 Gulko, Boris F 2618 USA g 4 57 13300016 Vaganian, Rafael A 2617 ARM g 21 No program comes even close to 2600 IMHO at 40/2. Ed
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.