Author: Will Singleton
Date: 00:27:04 01/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 1999 at 01:42:38, James B. Shearer wrote: >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 Actually, it plays equally badly vs humans and computers in the endgame. :) I'll have to start keeping stats about who I play. If you and Volovka keep playing me, I'm sure my rate vs humans won't look too good. Will
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.