Author: Albert Silver
Date: 10:16:34 06/08/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 08, 1998 at 12:43:08, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>
>On June 08, 1998 at 11:04:21, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>Some GM's at ICC:
>>
>>The GM list:
>[snip]
>
>To be fair, a lot of these don't play anymore or never did play, or
>played via remote control, or whatever.
>
>>So if some GM's (masses of gm's at icc, like Kasparov, Svidler, and
>>probably
>>even Kramnik) play a computer and lose against it at 3 0, then
>>this computer gets up in rating, and can remain at this rating,
>>yet at FICS it would play still the same strength and be rated lower.
>
>Mine plays on ICC. It was the first account to go over 3000. It does
>not play 3 0 or 4 0, the fastest it goes is 5 0.
>
>Most of the strong humans are playing 5 3, it seems to me. One GM is
>playing 10 2.
>
>>It's a complex system, and i think inflation is not the right word,
>>because you cannot compare normal rating to blitz rating,
>>and the different type of players that get compared: computers get
>>compared
>>with humans, and there a lot goes wrong.
>
>I don't know what the deal is with ICC ratings. It used to be that 2600
>was a completely outrageous rating. These days someone has to go over
>3100 before they attract the same sort of attention.
Well, I can't comment on what ICC was like in the past but I can say
that I have no understanding of the ratings in ICC. I have on more than
one occasion played opponents who were rated at least 200 points above
me and found myself rewarded with 1 (!) extra rating point after beating
them, then I'll beat an opponent rated 50 points less and get 10 points
or more for my efforts, so you can imagine what I think of the validity
of ratings there.
>
>I used to use a P6/200 on ICC, it peaked out at 2800 or so, back when
>this was the best anyone else was doing. Now when I run the same
>machine, 2800 is a disappointment, 2900 is more like it, and sometimes
>it exceeds 3000.
>
>The software is better now but not that much better.
There is a funny possibilty now that I think of it: it is well known
that some players are really very successful against computer opponents.
Even when their colleagues who are rated 200-300 points more than they
do not do nearly so well. This would really mess with the rating system
as let's say a master scores a solid 50% against a 2800 rated computer
account and gains a generous amount of rating points which he promptly
loses to GM X who is only rated 2600 but who outplays him regularly.
This goes beyond the usual nemesis element in which a player due to
stylistic incompatibilities just can't seem to do well against a certain
opponent. In tournaments this happens undoubtedly but on a much smaller
scale (Player A will only encounter Player B about 3-4 times in a year
if that many), but on ICC where tens and hundreds of games are played,
this divergence is multiplied enormously. Perhaps therein lies part of
the explanation.
Albert
>
>I don't know if the 2200's are now 2500 as well, but the 2700's seem to
>be 3000's now.
>
>bruce
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.