Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 08:34:25 03/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 03, 2002 at 08:46:11, Uri Blass wrote: >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. Hmm, maybe, but I think you will need a faster interface than winboard. >>>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. > So, because An+1 will in 1 of 20 games make 1 less random move than An, then that will be enough to get 4 point more elo? I seriously doubt it, it probably does translate to less than an elo, one less random move does not translate to a won game. Even if it was 4 elo, you still would need more than 1000 games to observe this within the standard diviation. >>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 think you should do the experiment, I wonder if they wouldn't all end in a draw due to insufficent material, seems unlikely one would get mated. >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 Go Uri go :) -S.
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.