Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 22:43:41 11/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2002 at 01:15:12, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 26, 2002 at 17:26:59, Bertil Eklund wrote: > >>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 > >I do not think that chessbase paid kramnik money money directly to lose > >I suspect that kramnik lost on purpose because he thougt that after a draw there >is going to be an interest in a new match so he can get more money. > >It is better in order to prevent things like this in the future to decide before >the match that another match against the same person is going to happen only if >he get better result relative to other humans so kramnik is going to know that >if he draws and another player wins then he does not get opportunity for another >match. > >Another possibility is that kramnik wanted to earn money from guessing that the >result is going to be a draw so after leading 3-1 he put money for a 4-4 draw. > >I think that it is better in order to reduce this possibility not to pay players >for losing or drawing the match but only for winning the match. > >If no human agree to play in the condition that you get money only for winning >the match that it is a real proof that machines are better but I suspect that >GM's like smirin will agree to play 8 games 120/40 against every computer when >the conditions are that smirin get 500,000$ for winning the match and nothing >for drawing and losing. > >Smirin proved that he can do 5-3 against 4 different programs at faster time >control. > >Fritz is probably better than these programs but the possibility to prepare for >one specific program and the longer time control is clearly enough compensation. > >Uri I don't believe he lost on purpose with a sacrifice that could havw won against every human and could have been the game of the year. In the last two games with a won position for Fritz in game 7 and a better for Kramnik in the last it is obvious that there was some kind of "gentleman" agreement to make the match a draw. Meaning they screwed the sponsors, so the next time they must go elsewhere for the money. 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.