Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: SSDF Rating list

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 06:50:42 06/13/01

Go up one level in this thread


On June 13, 2001 at 05:57:11, Christophe Theron wrote:

>On June 13, 2001 at 05:35:30, stuart taylor wrote:
>
>>On June 13, 2001 at 05:05:45, Marcus Kaestner wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is the most reliable tool that we have to evaluate the chess programs. The
>>>>difference in the opponents each program has to face does not matter from a
>>>>mathematical point of view.
>>>
>>>i think you are wrong!
>>>
>>>having now over two years of experience with my own chessbits-lists, i can say
>>>to you that it is VERY easy to place a program with a HIGHLY overrated (or
>>>underrated) position into the list.
>>>
>>>there are dozens of possibilities to fake a rating.
>>>
>>>i do not say that the ssdf fakes, i only say that it DOES matter which opponents
>>>you choose.
>>>
>>>marcus
>>
>>Of course it does!
>>If you play a 1200 elo rated player you can be sure to win 100% of times, and
>>you play 100,000 games, you will have got a rating of 3000 long long before
>>then.
>
>
>
>No you are definitely wrong.
>
>Due to the elo calculation formulas, a program which wins 100% of its games
>against a 1200 elo opponent will have a rating of exactly 1600.
>
>Far from 3000, isn't it?
>
>Food for thoughts.
>
>
>
>    Christophe



Nope.  Elo didn't demand that we use "integers" in computing ratings with
his formula.  As a result, the upper bound on a rating is essentially infinite
as every win will increase your rating by some non-zero value.


>
>
>
>
>>  When I used to play vs. Hiarcs 6 and 7 and get my play rated, I always got one
>>point for winning against the instant level, which was sooooo easy. If I needed
>>to do it for a very important reason, I could be sure to get a 3000 elo rating
>>that way, but if I were plaing against its 2 min. per 60 moves, I would never
>>even reach anywhere near what my true rating would be-between about 2200-2300
>>elo.
>>(though if "instant" means that the human must also play  instant, then of
>>course there's no hope for any human).One minute per game would be like a human
>>"instant", if not two minutes.
>>S.Taylor



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.