Author: KarinsDad
Date: 15:52:52 03/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 02, 1999 at 15:39:34, Bruce Moreland wrote: [snip] > >If you go onto ICC and type "best c" you'll get 9 computers and 11 humans in the >blitz list (my program isn't there, it's off the bottom these days, what's on >there is mainly a bunch of multiprocessor crafties, and a few people running >commercials manually). If you do a round-robin of 10-game matches between >everyone on that list, at any rational blitz time control, the list would >scramble completely, and I bet the computers would go *up*. > >bruce What you are saying is reasonable. However (there is almost always a however with me), Anand has an extremely difficult time beating Karpov. But Anand is ranked second in the world and Karpov is ranked 9th or 15th in the world, depending on which list you look at (the difference is 71 points on FIDE and 86 points on WCC). Nobody says that Anand's rating is skewed since he has an extremely difficult time beating Karpov in match or tournament play. The reason that you and Mark contend that the ICC ratings are skewed is that some players do not play the computers at blitz whereas the computers play everyone who challenges them. Hence, the blitz ratings for some humans are inflated since they are not playing the computers. This is a fair statement. The original post referred to GMs who played blitz time and had a much higher blitz rating there than in FIDE. This is easy to explain since in FIDE, GMs are almost exclusively playing other extremely strong players whereas in ICC, they can play anyone (and they can also exclude anyone, such as programs). This supports your contention and I agree with it. However, the original post also referred to GMs who played more standard times and played computers and had lower ratings than they did in FIDE. This subset of GMs and their ratings at standard times does not correspond with the blitz data (the two are disparate sets of data). One could be led to believe from the original post's limited data that since the GMs who play computers have lower ICC ratings than they do FIDE ratings, it is due to them playing computer programs and hence computer programs are close to GM strength (this is a postulate, not a fact, and one which is probably not the primary reason for their lowered ratings). My contention is that although some of the ratings on ICC are skewed (specifically the blitz ratings), overall the skewed ratings do not adversely affect the data regarding the GMs (who do play against programs) that have lower ratings on ICC than in FIDE on more standard times. However, how much of this is based on them playing computers, how much of it is based on them playing G30 as opposed to 40/2 G/1 or similar times, and how much of it is based on them not taking the games as seriously, has yet to be determined. KarinsDad :)
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.