Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:24:15 02/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2002 at 16:22:00, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: >On February 22, 2002 at 16:04:24, Albert Silver wrote: > >>On February 22, 2002 at 15:52:59, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: >> >>>I work in the area known as Analysis.Anyway this is how I came up with the >>>300 number.I think it is just a good rule of thumb ( I have not still conducted >>>any experiments yet) .For example many comps action rated by the USCF have >>>action ratings 200 above the slow 40/2 rating.I merely added 100 to the action >>>rating to get the blitz .Nothing fancy. >> >>So you're saying that if a perfect player beats Kasparov 100% of the time at >>40/2 it will be rated 3300, if it beats him 100% at g/30 it will be rated 3500, >>and if it beats him 100% of the time in Blitz it will be rated 3600? I suppose >>that it gets more perfect the faster it plays? >> >> Albert >No actually this is not what I am saying.A perfect player will not beat Kasparov >100% of the time.Due to the power of HUman INTUITION there are many >ways that can lead to a draw (for a plyer of Kasparovs caliber using intuition). >There is NO doubt that Kasparov will lose a MATCH to the perfect player.Back >to the point : Most Computers have ratings of 200 more in action chess then they >do in 40/2.This of course does not mean they are getting stronger .But it >does mean this:Take this example(this is only an example!!!!!!!!!) the NOVAG >Saphire has an action rating of 2383 .This means that a human rated 2383 by the >USCF will be even with this machine in action chess over a series of games . >But the formula says that in 40/2 the rating is only 2183.The same human would >then come up ahead in a match at 40/2. Then the human is breaking the forumla, isn't he/she? Or is it the machine? Probably never took the right math class.
This page took 0.01 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.