Author: James B. Shearer
Date: 22:42:38 01/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 1999 at 04:24:37, Will Singleton wrote (in part):
>I am a bit confused by the fact that it appears to be more difficult for some
>member programs to play against computers than humans. That is, when a
>program doesn't play other programs, it's rating will usually rise. Is this
>generally true, or not? And why should it be so, since the rating system should
>normalize this?
The rating system is based on a model which only approximates reality. It
would not be surprising if there are detectable deviations between the model and
reality. Note the model was developed for human tournament play, the ICC
environment is rather different.
In any case I don't think rating model claims that your rating playing a
subset of the pool of players will always be the same as your rating playing the
entire pool. So it is conceivable that program x performs at a 2200 level
against computers on ICC but performs at a 2400 level against humans on ICC.
(Of course such programs should be balanced by other programs which are better
against computers so there is no net flow of rating points between the human and
computer pools).
Naturally one can speculate endlessly when lacking data. How does Amateur
do playing humans vrs playing computers? For example what is its performance
rating for its last 100 games against humans as opposed to its last 100 games
against computers? (One could divide the pool in other ways, strong opponents
vrs weak opponents for example.)
James B. Shearer
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.