Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:53:39 09/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 2000 at 14:26:26, Uri Blass wrote: >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. Sure they will. On occasions. Statistics not only predicts this, but demands it. But they won't come often, IMHO. > >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. Some tried, most didn't. Of the ones that tried they had more successes than those that didn't try. > >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. For the time being. But when they begin to get dislodged from finishing where they want at a tournament, I'll bet they begin to "study the problem" a bit more seriously. > >3.5 out of 9 in 2 similiar tournaments is going to be enough to get the GM >title. I haven't seen a tourney where 3.5 of 9 would be a GM norm, unless you only include the top 8 GMs in the world (maybe). However, 2 norms isn't the _only_ requirement. They have to maintain a GM rating in the FIDE list for the time they are working on the norms. > >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 Do you think top-level tournaments will allow computers that have not competed in the regular tournaments to play? They wouldn't allow a human in. But they might allow a computer, _if_ the sponsor contributes enough cash to make it "interesting" I suppose.
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.