Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 05:14:20 12/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2003 at 03:25:05, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 29, 2003 at 22:44:08, Mike Byrne wrote: > >>On December 29, 2003 at 21:49:40, Mike Byrne wrote: >> >>>On December 29, 2003 at 15:47:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On December 29, 2003 at 13:59:55, Mike Byrne wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>On December 29, 2003 at 13:23:33, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 29, 2003 at 12:46:47, Luis Smith wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>I do agree too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Crafty has no realistic chances to win a WCCC. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Sandro >>>>>>> >>>>>>>IMO only Bob can know this for sure. I think people either over estimate the >>>>>>>commercials, or underestimate Crafty. After all at the WCCC's only 11 games >>>>>>>were played, who knows what could have happened in that time, especially with >>>>>>>the kind of hardware that Dr. Hyatt could get. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, Bob does not know this. >>>>>>He is a "little outdated" on this matter. >>>>>> >>>>>>At the 2003 WCCC there were 3 favorites (Shredder, Fritz and Junior), 2 possible >>>>>>outsiders (Brutus and Diep). >>>>>> >>>>>>Based on my experience I gave these chances, before the tournament started: >>>>>> >>>>>>Shredder 35% (because of the slower hardware) >>>>>>Fritz 30% >>>>>>Junior 25% >>>>>>Brutus 7% >>>>>>Diep 3% >>>>>>rest 0% >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>The rest of the field is never 0%. Any bookie can tell you that. It might be >>>>>15 to 1, 30 to 1 -- even a 100 to 1 . but the chances are never "zero" - that >>>>>would make the payoff infinity. >>>> >>>>Wrong. >>> >>>Vincent, I love you - you have not lost not one iota of ability to doublespeak. >>> >>>I'll skip futher down. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>When Diepeveen (FM) 2300 plays Jonathan Schaeffer in chess at FIDE level (40 in >>>>2 + 20 in 1 + 15, you are correct that he has a 1% chance to win from me. It >>>>happens each so many years that i lose from a national master (2000 rated USCF). >>>>Statistically his chance is higher by the way than in reality. The only 2000 >>>>rated player i lost from last 6 years a 2 hours game (so not fide rated even, >>>>only national) was a youth talent who was 2200 rated one rating list later (so >>>>underrated). >>>> >>>>The only reason Jonathan has a chance is because he can play without blundering >>>>away all pieces and he knows at which spot a piece is best. He has of course >>>>experience playing titled players in tournament games. >>>> >>>>Depending upon whether he has practiced past weeks, Jonathans chances will be >>>>1.5% or 0.5% practically spoken. This is simply not interesting. There is *some* >>>>chance. Chance is bigger when i'm feeling a bit sick of course. >>>> >>>>We can of course argue a long time about how high the chance is and we will >>>>never agree i bet. My argument will be he has less than 1% chance because USCF >>>>is inflated compared to the european ratings of today. >>>> >>>>However, >>>> >>>>Diepeveen - Eric van Reem (1803 national rated in Netherlands) >>>> >>>>That's a 0% chance for Eric. I will be motivated to my bones to beat someone >>>>like Eric of course. >>>> >>>>Now people will go start using statistics that i might blunder once in my life >>>>at move 7 away a piece or something, or that eric has some trick once in his >>>>life which he sees and he wins from me. >>>> >>>>All possible. >>>> >>>>When i claim to never lose, that's just a claim. At a certain level people >>>>simply give away too little pieces to ever lose from very low rated players. >>>> >>>>But still people will tell here: "well perhaps the chance is 0.0001 but it is >>>>possible that once in your life you blunder away that piece against a 1800 >>>>rated". >>>> >>>>This argumentation is true of course. >>>> >>>> VIRTUAL REALITY >>>> >>>>But now the reality. I ask the statisticians now: what is the chance that at an >>>>11 round match, Eric van Reem(taken many pictures from titled players) will beat >>>>Vincent Diepeveen(FM), perfectly healthy and playing for his life, in a 11 round >>>>match? >>>> >>>>But now let's say that i am not so healthy, despite feeling healthy, and by >>>>coincidence that week have a virus which kills my possibilities to play well. >>>> >>>>I bet statistics will say 0.00000000000000000000001 at most now. >>>> >>>> >>>> REALITY >>>> >>>>The real reality is that in a world champs Eric van Reem isn't only playing FM >>>>Vincent Diepeveen. Reality is that everyone is motivated to win. First round he >>>>gets GM Alterman, then he gets Omid David Tabibi (didn't play much lately but >>>>plays very strong 2200+ hands down), then he gets 2343 FIDE rated Johannes >>>>Zwanzger and that for 11 rounds. >>>> >>>>Now the 0.00000000000000000000001 changes in 0 simply. >>>> >>>>Imagine next, a 11 round world championship humans. the participant list: >>>> >>>>1. Kramnik 2777 (note that his matches vs kasparov and such were never >>>> counted for FIDE rating, fide has boycotted that. >>>> Lucky kasparov) >>>>2. Ponomariov 2718 >>>>3. Kasparov 2830 >>>>4. Anand 2766 >>>>5. Adams 2725 ENG >>>>5. Svidler 2723 (qualified at internet) >>>>6. Polgar 2722 >>>>7. Ivanchuk 2710 >>>>8. Sokolov, Ivan 2695 NETHERLANDS >>>>9. Ye, Jiangchuan 2681 >>>>10.Lautier 2666 FRANCE >>>>11.Onischuk 2661 USA (highest rated US player who is active) >>>>12.Van Wely 2654 NETHERLANDS >>>>13.Seirawan 2621 USA >>>>14.Bu, Xiangzhi 2606 CHN (Born: 1985-12-10) >>>>15.Diepeveen 2276 >>>>16.Hyatt 1800 (local rating, FIDE starts at 2000 for international >>>> events) >>>> >>>>time control 40 in 2. rounds = 11 >>>> >>>>If we play 11 rounds you are now claiming that number 15 and 16 have a tiny >>>>chance to win the world title FIDE? >>> >>>No, show me where I claimed that - classic Vincent doublespeak. In the example I >>>used , somebody has picked the top 5 out of 14 and said the rest of the field >>>had 0%. To use your example, the rest of the field is with Polgar on down - are >>>YOU now claiming that 6 through 16 have no shot. It's not 0.0000000000000001%. >>> >>>My God, that is biggest nonsense i ever heard! >>> >>> >>>> >>>>That is the biggest nonsense i ever heard! >>>> >>>>The chance is not 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 >>>>The chance is 0 exactly. >>>> >>>>Just like the world champion FIDE 2004 will never be a player rated < 2600 for >>>>the very same reason. >>>> >>>>The only reason bookmakers give 1 to 30, is because they earn more giving 1 to >>>>30 than when they would give 1 to 100. >>>> >>>>>Besides, the tournamnament format , imo, is stupid. An 11 round swiss with 14 >>>>>or so participants? - they should make a "normal" swiss (say 5 rounds with 14 >>>>>participants or a round robin - add just 2 more rounds with 14 participants. I >>>>>forget exactly the number of rounds and participants, but I'm not far off. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Do you really believe Crafty is better than the average rest? I do not. He would >>>>>>have to rely on too many bugs on the competition. This is not realistic. >>>>>> >>>>>>Of course everybody can say anything different, but in reality this is the >>>>>>situation. >>> >>> >>>The reality is this -- the performance ratings of WCCC at Graz. The odds are >>>Crafty would have finished somewehre between List and Brutus according to the >>>latest SSDF results. Crafty is just about 200 points behind Shredder on equal >>>hardware on the latest SSDF ratings. Your beloved Diep finished nearly 400 >>>points behind Shredder in this tournament and would have no shot against Crafty. >>> That's reality. >>> >>>1 Comp Shredder 2734 11 >>>2 Comp Deep Fritz 2722 11 >>>3 Comp Deep Junior 2632 10 >>>4 Comp Brutus 2596 11 >>>5 Comp List 2485 8 >>>6 Comp Greenlight Chess 2415 10 >>>7 Comp Diep 2344 10 >>>8 Comp Quark 2323 10 >>>9 Comp Chinito 2321 11 >>>10 Comp Falcon 2262 10 >>>11 Comp ParSOS 2253 11 >>>12 Comp Deep Sjeng 2234 11 >>>13 Comp Jonny 2228 11 >>>14 Comp Nexus 2169 11 >>>15 Comp Hossa 1947 10 >>>16 Comp Ruy Lopez 1935 10 >>> >>>note _ calculation was based on actual games played - no forfeit wins - another >>>loving dose of reality. >>> >>>love, >>> >>>Michael >> >> >>I forgot to mention - the ratings above were derived using the Fritz rating tool >>- I made no effort to calibrate them to anything else - they are only good >>relative ratings to each other --- not to SSDF, USCF, FIDE etc. It 's the delta >>between the programs that may be useful, the absolute values mean nothing in >>this context. > > >Based on Leo's rating list >see rating list in http://wbec-ridderkerk.nl/ > >We have on single processor > >Deep Sjeng1.5 2641(2234 in your list) >Crafty19.03 2574(your estimate near 2534 that is shredder minus 200) >GreenLightchess3.00 2501(2415 in your list) >Quark2.05b 2487(2323 in your list) > >You seem to reduce 200 from the rating of shredder to calculate crafty's place >when you ignore comparison of Crafty with other programs. > >I think that it was a tournament when the commercial programs were simply lucky >so if you give rating based on the tournament the difference between the >commercial and the rest should be bigger. > >Uri I am not familiar with Leo's rating list -- but in any tournament an engine can exceed worse or better than expecations. Perhaps DeepSjeng was unlucky. But that just proves the point that we were initially talking about -- where someone said the rest of the field (after the top 4 or engines) had no shot and I say the rest of the field has a shot.
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.