Author: Albert Silver
Date: 13:48:53 02/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2002 at 16:46:30, Albert Silver wrote:
>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? these are known facts.Breaking what formula?
>
>*Sigh* The theoretical maximum rating would be to score 100% against the highest
>current rating, in this case Kasparov's. This theoretical maximum can change as
>the highest rating moves up or down. Perfect play MAY be the highest _practical_
>rating, but not the highest _theoretical_ rating. The highest _theoretical_
>rating is of course 100% against Kasparov, or whomever the highest rating may
>belong to.
Oh yes, and one more thing: the highest rating possible has nothing to do with
the TC. 100% is 100%.
Albert
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.