Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 00:03:19 10/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 21, 1998 at 17:29:00, blass uri wrote: > >On October 21, 1998 at 16:29:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 21, 1998 at 09:18:57, blass uri wrote: >> >>> >>>On October 21, 1998 at 08:07:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On October 21, 1998 at 04:37:38, Nouveau wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>On October 20, 1998 at 12:13:16, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 20, 1998 at 10:37:36, Nouveau wrote: >>>>>>>On October 20, 1998 at 01:36:22, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Here's result for 20 games match with 60/5 time limit (under Winboard): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Comet 0.5 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 1 0.5 0 1 0 = 8 >>>>>>>>Wcrafty 0.5 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 0 1 = 12 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>So they are very close to each other in playing strength. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Jouni >>>>>>> >>>>>>>12-8 is very close ?????????? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>When can we say : Crafty is better than Comet ? 18-2 ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I don't understand these statistical stuff : I can't imagine a 12-8 result in a >>>>>>>match between 2 GM with a conclusion like "They are very close in playing >>>>>>>stregth". >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Why do we need hundreds, maybe thousands of games between computers to evaluate >>>>>>>relative strength, when few dozens are more than needed for human GMs ? >>>>>>Any strong conclusion from a single match is faulty. It could be that Comet is >>>>>>500 points above Crafty, or 500 points below (although both of these are >>>>>>statistically very unlikely, really, very little has been demonstrated at this >>>>>>point from a single set of games). >>>>> >>>>>Just imagine : the match between Kasparov and Chirov takes place and the result >>>>>is : Kasparov-Chirov = 12-8. >>>>>Maybe Kasparov is 500 points above Chirov or 500 points below...Show me any >>>>>chess magazine that would print such an affirmation. >>>>>I know, those chess journalists don't have a clue on science and stats ;o) >>>>> >>>>>> The international chess bodies like FIDE >>>>>>have definitely got it right in the way that they perform evaluations using the >>>>>>ELO method. Also, in requiring a long period of excellent results to become a >>>>>>GM. >>>>> >>>>>Can someone make the math for this : a player has a 2600 level but no rating, >>>>>how many games against a 2500 opposition does he need to reach 2600 ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>easy here. one game. his rating would be 2700 after that one game, since >>>>the first N games uses the usual "TPR" type calculation. >>> >>>after 1 game you have no rating >>>you need at least 9 games to have a rating (not important if it is 2005 or 2700 >>> >>>players who have 2005 rating need at least 30 games if you assume they cannot >>>earn more than 20 elo in one game. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>No idea about FIDE rules about ratings, but the USCF publishes ratings after a >>single tournament. I have known players with ratings like this: 2244/4, which >>means provisional with only 4 games played so far. And during the provisional >>period, the rating can fluctuate dramatically because the formula is simply >>the sum of the ratings of the opponents you beat (+400 for each one) plus the >>sum of the ratings of the opponents that beat you (-400 for each one) plus the >>sum of the ratings of the opponents that you drew, divided by the total games >>counted. IE performance rating. And in that light, beating a GM gives you his >>rating+400 after one game... >> >>And I assume most use K=32 nowadays (at least the ratings I have seen do this) >>which means you can go up/down up to 32 points in one game... > >I remember that in fide rules K is not constant and it is bigger for players >that did not play many games. > >I do not remember the exact rules but I do not know about K=32 in fide rules and >I think that K is smaller for everyone. > >I know that I needed at least 9 games against rated players to get a fide >rating. > >I needed 2 tournaments for a fide rating because in the first tournament I had >not 9 games against fide rated players. > >Uri USCF minimum might be 3 or 4 games. CFC minimum is 4 games before they'll publish a provision rating. FIDE wants 9 games. If I recall correctly, FIDE's K factor was 12 back when it was constant. This is a far cry from the USCF's 32. (The CFC used 32 when <2300, then 16 when >2300. Recently they diddled with their formulas, I didn't pay much attention to exactly how, but they did move the cutoff to 2200.) At any rate, all interesting modern hardware and software combinations are strong enough that if you were going to treat them as players that could vary in skill over time, a K factor of at most 12 would be appropriate. Since the variablility of computer play is so low relative to the variability of human play, perhaps a K of 4 (hand-wave) would be more realistic. Dave Gomboc
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.