Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:53:40 02/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 2003 at 14:20:53, Chris Carson wrote: >On February 07, 2003 at 13:31:54, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >>On February 07, 2003 at 12:57:24, Chris Carson wrote: >> >>>I see support for the Super GM (2700+) case, I do not see any data/results for >>>the below 2700 case that you state. This is a broad range of players and a >>>large spread of ratings. Lots of games, some tournament and some matches. >> >>The important distinction is the match conditions, ie. similar to those given to >>Kasparov and Kramnik as initially mentioned in my reply to Chessfun. (The >>financial arrangement aside) Games from the past are virtually irrelevant in >>this respect. >> >>Whether "weak" GMs would have a chance push computer programs below 2700 without >>preparation is a different question. I don't think that is impossible either if >>the incentive is there. Older data may not be as suggestive as one might think, >>because the parameters are vastly different. >> >>Then there's still the scientific test, ie. the matchup without preparation, >>where the engine is stripped of artificial help like opening books and endgame >>tables. I'm sure that there are those that doesn't consider this to be the >>scientific test. That's their problem IMHO. >> >>There's plenty of life left in the human vs. chess program encounter if it isn't >>manipulated by commercial interests IMO. I hope that doesn't sound too much like >>Rolf ;-). >> >>Regards, >>Mogens > >I think you have one different question here, so I will re-state it and then >talk about it. > >Question: What is the Elo Rating of a Chess Engine (no book, tablebases, ...)? > or How many points do opening books, TB, ... add to a program? > >This is a different question than the one I have been interested in. I am (and >most people, I think) interested in the strength of the entire programs/hw (with >books, ...). The Engine strength could be determined, but funding for this >would be very hard to find (perhaps impossible unless you use your own funds). >However, perhaps the "average" chess player might be interested to know how >"valid" is the engine analysis (ELO strength)? Good question, easy to answer, >hard to get funding/tournaments/matches. Perhaps test positions provide some of >this. > >The spurious variables (motivation, conditions, ...) that you suggest may exist, >however, I have done some analysis on this and find no significant difference >(at a 95% confidence level) using ad-hoc analysis and SPSS (stats program) data >analysis. Chris dont take me wrong but here you get me beyond my imagination. What are you talking about? I can't believe that you did what you claim here. Please elaborate if you can. Thanks. Rolf Tueschen > It could be there, but it is unlikely and funding for additional >tournaments, matches and analysis is unlikely. The events would have to be set >up so that a very large difference in motivation, conditions and the other >variables were present. Small and medium effects can be measured with existing >data and there was no significant difference. > >I do this for free (although this is my profession, behavioral research), I am >not paid by anyone for chess research. If the matches could be set up to test >these "variables"/issues you raise, then I will be happy to provide input on how >to create the tests and do the analysis (no charge). The GM's, tournament >officials and programmers may or may not volunteer time. > >Best Regards, >Chris Carson
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.