Author: Chris Carson
Date: 07:26:37 01/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 2000 at 10:07:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 06, 2000 at 09:02:51, Chris Carson wrote: > >>On January 05, 2000 at 16:36:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 05, 2000 at 15:11:43, Chris Carson wrote: >>> >>>>Your opinion is valued. :) >>>> >>>>Take a look at some of the tournament performance >>>>ratings (TPR) of some of the programs (Genius, Junior, Rebel, >>>>Tiger, Hiarcs, and others). See the computer resource center, >>>>rebel web page, Gambit Soft tournaments page and U pitt. Take >>>>a look a the AEGON and other events. Also take a look at the >>>>ratings on ICC. Top programs have high ratings there. :) >>>> >>>>Be prepared to be shocked. Sometimes the programs have high >>>>TPR's (above SSDF ratings). Critics call these an aberation. >>>>Sometimes the programs have lower than SSDF ratings. Critics >>>>call this the norm. I think both are expected and normal, >>>>just as human ratings fluctuate within expected norms. :) >>>> >>>>Best Regards, >>>>Chris Carson >>> >>> >>>This is bad statistical methodology however. If you pick any program of your >>>choice from Aegon, I will pick one to offset it. For any 2600TPR you find, I >>>will find one with a 2200 TPR. That is the problem. Statistics looks at the >>>averages, not at individual data points. And the average is way below 2600. >>> >>>As far as ICC goes, Crafty has been over 3250 there. I doubt it would have a >>>prayer in hell of doing that in FIDE events, running on a T932 even. >> >>Bob, >> >>You make some good points (as always). :) >> >>My point was that a 2600 TPR can be found (and I am not surprised based on >>SSDF ratings given 95% or 99.7% confidence levels) for some programs. >>I agree that 2200 TPR's can also be found. :) I consider both ends of >>the spread valid for the programs associated with the numbers. :) >> >>I think we agree. :) >> >>Best Regards, >>Chris Carson > > >The point where we may not agree is on the question "Is the computer a GM yet?" > >It is easy to find places where a computer produced 1 2600 TPR. But to become >a GM, it has to produce 3, and all the while keep its rating over 2500. That >is a lot harder than it is to produce one good result that is just a statistical >anomaly. > >I think that the 3 norms would be very difficult to produce, and staying over >2500 while doing so (at least a year) would be even harder when everyone starts >to take notice. Bob, I agree with you 100% on the above. I also do not think the programs will have the opportunity (which is a shame) to try for GM norms. I did not mean to imply GM norms, only tournament performance ratings and there is a difference as you point out. Just an observation. Deep Blue never achieved a GM norm. I do think Deep Blue could achieve a GM title, it is a shame it never had the chance. Oh, Deep Blue is in a class all its own, no intended comparison with current programs. :) I am going to find out who to talk with at the University of Texas in Dallas (they have a scholarship chess team) and see if that team would be interested in computer competition (and if any college tournaments with other teams would be possible). It may take some time. I wonder if any commercial programs would be interested? How about Crafty? This might take some time so I will let you know if anything grows from this effort. :) Best Regards, Chris Carson
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.