Author: John Merlino
Date: 13:31:50 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. The problem, the way it is described, is ambiguous. How do you define "perfect chess"? Do you define it as "never losing" or do you define it as "always winning"? If the answer is "always winning", then the answer is simple: infinity. If you define it as "never losing", then the problem is much more difficult, but you would be hard-pressed to prove that there is a theoretical maximum to ELO ratings. I remain unconvinced. Additionally, to say that there are different theoretical maximums based on time controls also seems exceptionally flawed, when the ratings are calculated identically. jm
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.