Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:46:11 03/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 03, 2002 at 08:16:14, Sune Fischer wrote: >On March 03, 2002 at 07:52:43, Uri Blass wrote: >>>I think is is more interesting to ask these question at the higher plies. >> >>I think that you prefer to ask questions that are practically impossible to >>answer. > >Well, yours is pretty far fetched also ;) > >>We cannot play games at 20,21,22 plies today. > >I suppose a million games to ply three is more realistic ;) Yes one game at depth 3 may take 1 second with the speed of the computers of today and wasting one million seconds or even few million seconds is something realistic. > >>I think that before asking the question about the rating of the perfect player >>we need to ask if rating has a clear meaning. >> >>The rating is based on some assumption about the expected result of A against C >>based on the expected result of A against B and the expected result of B against >>C. >> >>This assumption is based on the normal distribution and not on games. >>It is possible that we can get better assumption by playing games in the way >>that I suggest. >> >>suppose A1 beats A0 600-400 >>A2 beats A1 600-400.... >>A1000 beat A999 600-400 >> >>We may assume that the rating of A0 is 0. >> >>The question is what is the rating of A1000 and if we can expect the same rating >>for A1000 if we are going to play only 500 matches(A2 against A0,A4 against >>A2...A1000 against A998) >> >>Uri > >I'm guessing there would be 0.1 elo difference between A1000 and A999, you need >more than 500 games to reveal that within the standard diviation. Your assumption is wrong because if there is probability of 0.1% for a random move then I expect a random move to happen one time for 1000 moves. If we asssume that the average game take 60 moves then it means that there will be a random move in more than 1/20 of the games. I do not expect every random move to be decisive but I expect to see it often enough to get at least a result of 50.5-49.5 forn A1000 50.5-49.5 means 4 elo difference so I agree that the difference is going to be small but not 0.1 elo. >In principle the list should be ordered as A1,A2,....A1000, you will probably >see some strange things like A500 beating A523, so I'm not sure what you hope to >prove by this experiment. If the match is long enough I am not going to be strange things but I agree that with only 1000 game per match with these small difference I may see strange things so it is maybe better to use matches of 10000 games and probabilities of 100%,99%,98%,....1%,0%(I believe that with these probabilities I am not going to see strange things even with match of 1000 games so we can even save time. I want the difference to be small enough in order not to get practically results of 100% even when I play level x against level x+2 instead of level x against level x+1 and I want to know if the rating of the highest level is dependent on the question is we play x against x+1 or x against x+2. Uri
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.