Author: John Merlino
Date: 14:04:53 02/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2002 at 16:57:27, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: >On February 22, 2002 at 16:48:53, Albert Silver wrote: > >>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 >It has everything to do with it.There is nothing above 3300 theoretical or >otherwise. Your argument is breaking down rapidly. Here are some current best ratings on ICC: Standard Blitz Bullet 5-minute 2839 giant(C) 3460 Goldmund(GM) 3167 CraftyWiz(C) 2565 JRLOK(GM) 2778 garbaranza(IM) 3427 JRLOK(GM) 3139 Weezer(C) 2504 Dreev(GM) 2776 giant1-c(C) 3414 RebelRex(C) 3106 junglecat(C) 2499 GodGusti(IM) 2748 giant-c(C) 3412 lorenzo(GM) 3036 diep(C) 2474 J-Becerra(GM) 2747 Aegis(C) 3378 scrappy(C) 2998 KingLoek(GM) 2463 panagulis(IM) 2740 BrazilianMa(C) 3365 Dreev(GM) 2938 vipp-comput(C) 2448 Aedes(IM) 2733 SandmanJr(C) 3351 junglecat(C) 2930 Lohman(C) 2448 Jean-Reno(GM) 2720 ics(C) 3338 tnedev(GM) 2916 ics(C) 2428 Boaz(IM) 2703 bluegrass33(C) 3326 Foe-hammer(C) 2910 Hawkeye(GM) 2420 DrainYou(GM) 2693 matemastr(C) 3303 L-Aronian(GM) 2867 giant-c(C) 2400 mastro(IM) 2693 OzsO(C) 3291 Val-Vipp(C) 2818 EggSalad(C) 2389 juliana(GM) 2684 Colossus(C) 3276 norival(FM) 2812 Pittiplats(IM) 2388 NG(IM) 2684 Lohman(C) 3274 Fidget(GM) 2810 cow666(C) 2388 Serlock(IM) 2669 cow666(C) 3243 velimirovi(GM) 2804 Talmoves(C) 2383 feature(GM) 2666 BountyHunte(C) 3241 chaozz(GM) 2803 EA6PZ(C) 2382 Dadecky 2662 ghost(C) 3235 Pittiplats(IM) 2774 BountyHunte(C) 2375 Gela(GM) 2641 Ferret-CCT(C) 3233 Lohman(C) 2774 GodGusti(IM) 2364 mhebden(GM) 2640 Foe-hammer(C) 3219 Weezer(C) 2772 ArbaktheGr(GM) 2363 Atomrod(GM) 2635 Abraxis(C) 3214 GodGusti(IM) 2770 Traveler(C) 2362 SmartChip 2631 NewHal9000(C) 3210 zpx(GM) 2765 NewHal9000(C) 2355 thejinx(GM) 2623 SubtleOne(C) 3206 CARobot(C) 2757 JLAD(C) 2344 pokemonste(GM) 2618 ruffian(C) 3205 Hiarcs8x(C) 2750 Caissac(C) 2339 juar(IM) Notice that the ratings peak at the "Blitz" time control, because far more games have been played at this time control than others, leading to more rating inflation. Also notice that the 5-minute time control has the lowest-rated leader, for the opposite reason (least games played). So, your theory that faster time control means higher ratings is not borne out. Notice also that there are ten ratings in the Blitz section above 3300. So your argument about ratings above 3300 being impossible is also disproved. Now, please go ahead and tell me that ICC ratings don't count. 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.