Author: Serge Desmarais
Date: 18:44:28 09/17/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 1998 at 16:47:34, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: >On September 17, 1998 at 15:47:54, John Coffey wrote: > >>I have strong opinions about this topic. Let us assume that dropping the >>search by 1 ply equals 1 rating class, or cutting the number of nodes in >>half drops the strength by 80 to 100 points. If that is the case then it >>should be possible to weaken most programs down to near 0 strength. But the >>fact is that most programs have a lower limit that they will not go below >>unless you adjust other factors such as the value of the pieces or the "blunder >>range." >> >>If and when I write my chess program (starting next month), I intend to have >>a feature where one could set the rating at any level from 0 to whatever the >>upper limit is. The limiting factor will be the number of positions that >>the program can look at, and other factors such as "blunder range" should not >>be necessary. >> >>John Coffey > >But what does mean "zero strength"? > If you mean rating, then it is by no means the weakest you can achieve. In >fact, Elo ratings have meaning only for a group of players, and the meaning >comes from the *rating differences* among the players. You can add (or >substract) any arbitrary figure to *all* the ratings in a particular list, and >the *list* is still valid (because the rating differences will be the same). > For the same reason you can not compare ratings from different lists. I admit >that a rating of zero, under any of the lists currently published, is far weaker >than anybody would ever need. A rating of 0 = not knowing how to move the pieces/place the board? :) Serge Desmarais
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.