Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 15:37:47 03/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 19, 2002 at 17:53:25, Daniel Clausen wrote: >Hi > >On March 19, 2002 at 12:52:13, Sune Fischer wrote: > >[snip] > >>The elo system can handle any result you throw at it AFAIK. > >Well yes, but it's designed to determine relative strengths between players. And >they should be somewhat close rating-wise. The exact formulas vary a bit from >country to country (well ok, FIDE is more standardized :p) but basically you >don't get any ELO points if you're - say - 750 points better than the rest in >your pool of chess players. Therefore the best player couldn't get more points >than 2850+750 ELO, even when beating Kasparov each time. Well, one could just use the real gaussian and count frational points, even they will add up :) >>What needs to be defined is "perfect play". For instance will the perfect >>player just pick the moves random from those that lead to the draw, like an >>engine with no evaluation other than the score for win/draw/lose, or will he >>always choose the longest most complicated game possible (like swindle mode). > >The perfect player doesn't need swindle mode, he/she/it just beats you and me >(and Kasparov) no matter what. :p According to my definition a perfect player >knows that the opening position is mate in X, mated in X or draw. Stuff like >swindling mode are beyond it. You forget that chess is a limited game, even by pure statistics the perfect player will not win _every_ game. I think it will matter a great deal if the perfect player understands, that prolonging the game or complicating it by using agressive gambits will be in its favor. -S. >Sargon
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.