Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:26:26 09/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 2000 at 13:06:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 20, 2000 at 01:24:30, Jouni Uski wrote: > >>On September 19, 2000 at 10:22:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On September 18, 2000 at 17:42:06, odell hall wrote: >>> >>>>Hello CCC >>>> >>>> >>>> How many think the new SSDF List is relatively Accurate? Personally I commend >>>>SSDF for doing a outstanding Job, Based on my observations of the grandmaster >>>>Challenge and other 40/2 events, I think the list is very reliable. >>>>I believe it is safe to say that any top program running on a K62-450 is 2500 >>>>elo, or very near. I think that now that the rating has been significantly >>>>lowered, this list will be taken far more seriously in determining Fide rating >>>>for Modern Programs. I am curious if some skeptics of the List in the Past, >>>>consider the list still to high, or Just about right? Opinions Welcome >>> >>> >>>For anyone that understands the statistics in the Elo system, the correction >>>makes zero sense. There is no way to take two totally different rating pools, >>>and adjust one set of ratings to make them comparable to the others. As has >>>been pointed out so many times here, the _difference_ between two ratings is >>>the _important_ piece of data. Not the raw ratings themselves. All this >>>correction does is attempt to correct highly over-rated numbers on the SSDF >>>list. Adjusting _all_ ratings on their list changes _nothing_ of course. And >>>it still doesn't mean that their ratings have anything to do with FIDE ratings, >>>other than the top programs are now a bit closer to "reality ratings"... >> >>But are You still claiming programs are NOT at GM level? >>In reality they 100% sure are. >> >>Jouni > > >100% sure based on what? 100% opinion? > >The crux is this: > >If a GM plays "normal chess" vs a computer, then the computer will do OK. >It will _not_ run the GM off the board, but the computer will certaily play >and produce results as if it were a GM. > >If a GM plays "anti-computer chess" then this changes. And the machines will, >in general, look silly. They will fall into silly draws. They will fall into >silly losses. They will still win a few. But they won't be confused with a GM >in any way. I think that if they play with super GMs of 2700 then they can score less than 50% and still get the GM norms. Deep Junior did 4.5 out of 9 against average rating of more than 2700 and part of the GM's tried to play anti computer chess. Part did not succeed to win. Anand tried to play something that works against Fritz but Junior is different. Adams tried to play something that worked in blitz against Junior but tournament time control was a different story. I guess that part of the GM's prefer to play the board and they will never play anti computer chess. 3.5 out of 9 in 2 similiar tournaments is going to be enough to get the GM title. It may have problems to get the GM norm in tournaments against weaker players who play for a draw inspite of getting more than 50% but players can choose the tournament they play to get the GM norms and they can play only in tournaments when their rating is lower than the average rating. Uri
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.