Author: Mark Young
Date: 06:19:39 06/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2001 at 08:57:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 19, 2001 at 05:44:07, Mark Young wrote: > >>On June 19, 2001 at 05:15:30, Vine Smith wrote: >> >>>On June 19, 2001 at 03:49:07, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>On June 19, 2001 at 00:31:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 18, 2001 at 18:01:49, Chris Carson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Nice summary Mark. Calculate the overall average for GM's, I did it last year >>>>>>and it was around 2525. Programs are performaing higher than that and >>>>>>performance is the only thing that matters in my opinion. :) >>>>>> >>>>>>I for one do not care about a title, but the performance is the key. :) >>>>>> >>>>>>Best Regards, >>>>>>Chris Carson >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Several points: >>>>> >>>>>1. anyone check the _age_ of each GM being 'averaged' into this mess? IE >>>>>a 75 year old GM is still a GM, but won't have much of a rating. >>>>> >>>>>2. anyhone check to make sure ratings were current? IE Fischer's rating is >>>>>not particularly interesting since it is 30 years old and from a different >>>>>rating era. >>>>> >>>>>The main problem is probably age. Just like the "baby-boomers" are threatening >>>>>retirement systems around the world, they are also moving up into the "older-GM" >>>>>group as well. If you have more old GM players, then you will have a lower >>>>>overall GM average. Which means exactly nothing of course. >>>> >>>>This is data from the latest Fide list. If you think the data is flawed....Old >>>>Grandmasters, Out of date Grandmasters, mistakes in calculations, or just fraud >>>>etc. Then make your case with data not theory. It's easy to bluster, it much >>>>harder to do the work to prove the case as I and others are doing. >>>Gee, I thought it was "harder to do the work" of programming computers to play >>>chess. But now I see that Prof. Hyatt should just give up improving Crafty's >>>code, and instead compile masses of statistics to prove that its rating is 2500, >>>2600 or whatever. New versions of Crafty will consist of countless pages of ever >>>more refined calculations always resulting in higher Elo ratings. >> >>Then I suggest he keep working on crafty, and stop making false and misleading >>claims about what a grandmasters is, Since Dr. Hyatt does not have the time to >>find out and to check his facts. > > >At least "he" doesn't try to first define the result he wants, then go about >finding ways to massage the data to produce that result. "A statistician can >prove anything he wants, given enough time." That is what happend...not. > >Use all the old GM ratings. Use 1970 ratings mixed with 2000 ratings. Use >players that are 25 along with players that are 80. Use the ones that play >multiple events a year and the ones that play one event every several years. >Use the average IQ of a WWF wrestler. And the weight of the average Japanese >wrestler. Bob, Here is the point even cherry pick data (Best elo ever for all GM's) still does not produce the results you claim...That GM'S are over 2600+ elo average. > >Should be able to prove your point quite handily with all of that. > >Meanwhile, for the last 25 years, a GM had to play at the 2600 level for 20-30 >games in order to get the GM title. Nothing else to be said there. So the computers only need to play at a 2600 elo level for 20 to 30 games in your eyes to be considered GM's? If so they are playing at 2630 level for almost 50 games. A few >"honorary" exceptions, but most of the exceptions, when you look at them, would >have been unnecessary since to win an interzonal (for example) you had to win >a zonal too, and both would probably give you that 2600+ performance _anyway_ >at least the interzonal certainly would.
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.