Author: Howard Exner
Date: 09:09:12 07/24/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 1998 at 10:46:50, Tim Mirabile wrote: >On July 23, 1998 at 22:53:01, Howard Exner wrote: > >>Here is a summary of Rebel's achievement vs humns at long >>time controls. >> >>AEGON 95: TPR 2473 (Rebel7) P-90 Game 90'/30" 6 games >>AEGON 96: TPR 2530 (Rebel8) P-166 Game 90'/30" 6 games >>AEGON 97: TPR 2619 (Rebel9) P-200 Game 90'/30" 6 games > >Are these time controls for past AEGON's correct? There site is no longer up so I'm not 100% on the time controls for 95 and 96. Any participants of Aegon that remember the time controls and mcahines used? > >>Dominican Republic >> >>Rebel 9 played 5 Fide Rated opponents at 40/2 then all/1 hr. on a P-225 >> >>Eddy De Los Santos (2190) 1-0 >>Jose M. Dominguez (FM 2305) .5-.5 >>Gustavo Hernandez (2320) 1-0 >>Nelson Pinal (IM 2330) 1-0 >>Ramon Mateo (IM 2415) 1-0 >> >>TPR =Rc+400(W-L)/N >>TPR=2312+400(4)/5 >>TPR=2632 >> >>Note: this tournament was 11 rounds. Rebel defeated Hiarcs and drew CM5000 >>in this tournament. It also defeated 4 other participants who do not have a >>fide rating, for a first place score of 10/11. >> >>Rebel 10(AMD-450) v Anand (.5-1.5) >>TPR =2795+400(-1)/2 >>TPR = 2595 >> >>Is Rebel's play against humans in the GM range? > >400(W-L)/N, and the performance rating in general, is not very good in extreme >cases (short events, extreme ratings). Otherwise I play a match vs. Kasparov, >lose all games and get a 2400+ performance. If I can get the full crosstable >for the Dominican Republic event, I can do the regular round robin rating >calculations on it, which involve all participants, even those without FIDE >ratings. This would be much better, I agree. Rebel 9, I'm guessing would still TPR out in the GM range. Does it make sense to use the old AEGON events, which used old >versions of Rebel with slow machines? This is a kind of drawback (old machines and old software) but the magic number of having a minumum 25 games would be difficult to obtain. This is a problem when trying to rate >computers - they are moving targets. Humans can learn (kind of like a software >upgrade), but they can't upgrade their hardware (yet). I guess we can use them, >and say that Rebel's rating lags behind its true strength like a rapidly >improving human's would. In Rebel's case it seems to have logged in a few more games against humans at standard controls (for those who accept game 90/30 as standard). It at least gives us a ballpark estimation of its history vs humans at these controls. Looks impressive.
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.