Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 14:26:59 11/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 26, 2002 at 16:34:05, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 26, 2002 at 15:07:57, Bertil Eklund wrote: > >>On November 26, 2002 at 13:16:05, James T. Walker wrote: >> >>>Hello Tony, >>>Thanks for your comments. First if you have ever adjusted the rating list >>>upwards I have never seen it. I suspect it was very early in the testing stages >>>to get close to a percieved parity with human play. I also suspect that if all >>>the adjustments are combined the result is definitely down. I also suspect the >>>reason is because of the exageration of comp/comp games which keeps making the >>>top ratings higher that they would be if actually calibrated to human ratings. >>>That is all the point I was trying to make. You ARE trying to make the ratings >>>resemble human ratings and not JUST trying to compare computers to computers. >>>The error bars are probably accurate to the data they are fed with. I see no >>>reason for them to be wrong although I have not tried to check them. Would you >>>explain exactly what Thoralf has told all testers to do or not do? Can you tell >>>what exactly is the organization method of creating the data. >>>Jim >> >>Hi! >> >>The simple reason for the adjusting downwards are that almost every human are >>used to computer programs nowadays. In the past most of the human games came >>from tournaments, today most of the games are from matches when the human >>prepares day and night against it. In example when I play against Mach3, I >>performs maybee 200 elo better today vs when I bought it. The same goes for the >>big guys when they play Fritz and co. If Kramnik hadn't played months with Fritz >>and other programs I believe he should have lost. > >I do not believe it. >I believe that kramnik simply lost on purpose. > >The reason that I believe it is the way that kramnik lost. >Kramnik does not do one ply blunder in 120/40 games against humans like he did >against Fritz. > >Kramnik is also not the person to do often speculative sacrifices and based on >analysis of more than hundred of games it was possible to find only one against >anand. > >The fact that kramnik did the blunders that he did suggest the conjecture that >kramnik was cheating. > >Uri So you believe Chessbase paid him over 200000 USD for the draw of the match?! Chessbase didn't pay the price-money and costs for the match. Fritz also had an almost won position in game 7 but Chessbase immediately accepted a draw. If they had paid the price-money, they should of course have played on. Why did he prepare so hard for the games if he intended to lose the games on purpose. Bertil
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.