Author: KarinsDad
Date: 15:05:29 01/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 1999 at 17:44:46, James B. Shearer wrote: >On January 26, 1999 at 13:49:06, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On January 26, 1999 at 01:42:38, James B. Shearer wrote: >> > <snip> >> >>>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). >> >>Hard to say. I doubt there are many "balancing" programs out there. Since anyone >>can play anyone as many times as they want on the internet, an 1800 player (or >>computer) can endlessly play a 2400 rated computer and slowly bring it's rating >>up (and his rating down). > > There have to be balancing programs. Consider program x. It will tend to >win rating points when playing humans and then lose these rating points when >playing computers. It is in effect "pumping" rating points from the human pool >to the computer pool. These points must return to the human pool somehow. Ok, we were talking about two different things. I understand why some of the points would return to/from the human pool, but I do not understand why the flow to computers from humans would equal the flow from computers to humans. I also do not understand why programs would "max" out either high (2400 against humans) or low (2200 against computers). Why is that? Is there a rating floor (similar to USCF)? Or does the rating system have some safeguards in it that I do not know of? KarinsDad > This >can only happen if there are other computers which tend to win points against >computers and lose points against humans, thus "pumping" points back to the >human pool. Of course this reverse flow could be spread out over a large number >of computers and be hard to detect for an individual computer. > This "pumping" effect happens only when playing a mix of opponents. For >example if program x played humans only its rating would rise only until it >reached 2400 at which point it would stabilize (with random fluctuations of >course). It would not continue to rise indefinitely. Similarly if x played >computers only its rating would fall to 2200 and stabilize. So if a 1800 player >finds a 2400 computer which is only say 400 points better in games between them, >the 1800 player cannot use this to raise his rating indefinitely. Instead in a >long match the player's rating will tend to approach 1900 and the computer's >will tend to approach 2300. > 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.