Author: Graham Laight
Date: 03:33:08 11/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2003 at 06:20:40, Odd Gunnar Malin wrote: >On November 21, 2003 at 05:07:32, Graham Laight wrote: > >>Everybody knows that as chess computers improve, the proportion of draws in >>their games becomes higher. >> >>The same is true of humans: the following graph suggests that at Elo 3600, all >>games will be drawn: http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/ratings/Draws.jpg . I also >>think that a player who plays at Elo 3600 would be unbeatable - no matter how >>good his opponent was. For a 3600 player, obtaining a draw would, IMO, be almost >>as easy as it would be for me to obtain a draw against Kasparov with only a king >>against a king and a knight. In this situation, Kasparov's extra skill and >>knowledge of the game (and his extra piece) would count for nothing. >> >>If what I'm saying is right (and I personally think that it is), then there's a >>serious problem ahead for the Elo rating system: the system measures chess skill >>by a player's likelihood of beating another player. However - if the computer >>that can see 50 ply ahead is unable to beat the machine that can only see 25 ply >>ahead, then, according to the Elo rating system, it would have the same Elo >>rating! >> > >There are more players in the pool. >Would the result (over time) against a 20 ply player be equal for both? Up to elo 3600, the program with the best eval function would win. My argument is that once elo 3600 is reached, a program would never be beaten - no matter how deeply the opponent could search(see http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?329073 to see my case for this position). -g >Odd Gunnar
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.