Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:45:02 02/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2002 at 16:39:12, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: >On February 22, 2002 at 16:24:15, Dann Corbit wrote: >>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. >Are you denying the fact the Computers have higher action rating then 40/2 >ratings? Not at all, a brilliant observation that needed to be made by someone. >these are known facts.Breaking what formula? Well, if we consider that action chess is played at fast time controls, we arrive at your clever formula to add ELO as a (please tell me which) either a constant or a linear function of time, so that the 40/2 player (at much slower time control) sees a big drop in the ELO score. Which [as a model] does wonderfully explain how the *same* player can have 3300 at one time control and only 3000 at another. So, if we continue this *same* trend, we should drop even more points as we get slower and slower. After all, if we are 3300 at G/5 minutes and 3000 at 40/2hrs, then 1 move per day should drop us *WAY* down to 2000 ELO or so, wouldn't you say? Therefore, someone got it backwards. That's what happens when you turn a bunch of chessplayers loose who have never studied the math and therefore don't know the first thing about obeying simple formula.
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.