Author: J. C. Boco
Date: 18:58:55 11/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
>80 points might be true for computer vs computer games - that will not be true >for human vs computer IMO. For human vs computer , on the current top end >machines , I say it would be less than 50. > >I think for computer vs humans on the low end units (say rated 2000), doubling >might be worth about 75. Thank you, didn't think about a difference in the "constant" between humans and computers. >>I've been trying to come up with a logical (if >>conjectureable) scale of the Star Diamond's playing strength per level, and the >>number I've found useful is 150 points for each doubling. > >I totally disagree - but that is what makes the world interesting. Star Diamond >is about 3x faster than Saphire 2. IMO, that may be worth about 100 points, I >think the Sapphire 2 has about 2150 USCF strength. I would put the Diamond at >2250 -- perhaps it could be 2300 - but then maybe Sapphire 2 is perhaps 2200. >One is for sure, the Star Diamond is currently the strongest unit available >today. Only a few machine are potentially stronger - TASC R30/40, Genius 68030 >etc. I am not certain , perhaps SSDF could test the Star Diamond against these >older units. While I was disappointed that the opening book is smaller than originally planned, and I think the ROM (or RAM) is smaller than originally planned, I still consider it a good deal. My previous dedicated is a RadioShack2150L, about 9 years old. The RS2150L computer gives me a good game at level A6, in which the computer averages 1 minute per move (and not 40 moves in 40 minutes, but average response time of 1 minute per move). But I don't like waiting that length of time given that some of those games get pretty long. >>Just as a gross example of my little thought experiment (and I'm only doing this >>because I have to wait until monday to get my computer!). >> >>Let's say the Star Diamond is rated 2200 at 40/2. 2200 is just the number I'm >>using, since I'd like to think the $270 computer I just bought is a master. If >>I assume that with a dedicated computer each doubling is worth 150 points >>(instead of 80) then I get, with some aestetic rounding: >> >>Average time per move "Rating" >> >>3 minutes 2200 >>2 minutes 2100 >>1 minute 1950 >>30 seconds 1700 *****1800****** mistake >>15 seconds 1550 *****1650 >>10 seconds 1450 *****1550 >>5 seconds 1300 *****1400 >>2 seconds 1150 *****1250 >> > >To me, the math is not working - try 75 and work your way down. > > >3 minutes 2200 >2 minutes 2150 >1 minute 2075 >30 seconds 2000 >15 seconds 1925 >10 seconds 1875 >5 seconds 1800 >2 seconds 1725 > >I think this is reasonable for a dedicated unit rated @2200. ***REALLY?*** This blows me away. I really can't fathom that at 2 seconds per move it's rated 1725. Or at only 5 seconds it is a Class A player. Do you really think so? The lower levels seem awfully strong. I know you are following the log(speedup)/log2 *75, but those estimated ratings at 2 seconds and 5 seconds really seem too strong. But I have no proof to back up my claim. >Not since USCF took the Adult ratings down over a hundred points ove the last >several years. Perhaps add 50 - I would add "0". My personal opinion is the same, SSDF=USCF at the moment
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.