Author: Mark Young
Date: 11:14:05 03/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 1999 at 13:31:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On March 17, 1999 at 08:56:49, Albert Silver wrote: > >>This whole story about Mark's account screwing up the ratings on Chess4u has >>been somewhat interesting. No doubt a few will disagree. The reason is that NO >>ONE except for Hyatt, though for different reasons, actually gave any credence >>to this. Chess4u is right, but not about Mark. The accounts that inevitably >>cause inflation are the ones that use more than one program or accounts where a >>lot of testing is done. Suppose I have, as Mark did, Hiarcs 7 running on a >>PII-450 and it gets an official rating of 2800. No problem as it is indeed >>playing at that level and it's results correspond accordingly. Now suppose after >>about 2 months, I see the latest version of GNU chess out. The author claims it >>is vastly improved and should be playing much better, though no one knows just >>how much. I decide to test it with my account. GNU chess is not a 2800 player, >>but when testing starts it is playing with a 2800 rating. It gets trounced by >>the super opposition and the rating drops until it stabilizes at around 2300. I >>am not personally worried as after the testing is done, H7 will obviously regain >>it's lost points. The problem is that 500 points were spread out in the pool and >>they don't properly represent an increase in strength on the opponents' part. >>When I get back, I don't go to 2800, but a bit higher as I am now playing the >>same opponents, but with slightly higher ratings. If a program undergoes >>testing, and experiences severe rating fluctuations while it is being tested, >>then the same phenomenon takes place. Bob is obviously already aware of this as >>his notes to his Crafty account on ICC state that opponents who clearly play him >>ONLY when Crafty's rating is high but never when it is at a low, will be >>'noplayed'. >> >> Albert Silver > > >This is a problem that the 'operators' often don't consider. IE it is _really_ >unfair to have a 2300 rating with a 2800 program. The other case is bad in that >it is going to skew ratings, but this case is _really_ bad because anyone that >plays that 2300 player will likely get crushed at a rate comparable to what >would happen with a 2800 opponent. And that causes some gross hard feelings. > >This was the point I was trying to make with Mark... I understood your point, but it was not to the point in my case with Chess4You. I only used 1 Program, I only Played 11 games, and I played the strongest players in the ratings pool, and more then 1 player. Mark Young We are in a _very_ >_fragile_ state right now. Computers are already effectively banned from normal >tournaments. It won't take a lot before they are banned from servers. I think >we have to be _very_ cautious or we are going to lose what has been the most >remarkable development environment I have seen in 30 years of doing this. > >I think that if someone told me "Hey, don't match and kill low-rated programs" >that I would simply "not match them, as asked." (I don't match them anyway so >this is actually moot). But there are times to fight back, and times to turn >the other cheek. In light of the 'mood' concerning computers playing chess >today, I think 'caution' is required. Because once the servers start saying >"OK, we've had enough of this rating manipulation stuff, enough complaings from >titled players getting challenged by computers, enough of all of this, so say >good-bye, computers, and get off this server." And anybody that doesn't think >that can/will happen is poorly informed and ought to look over the delegate's >meeting discussions in old CL&R's and so forth. I was _there_ for a couple, >and in 1984 it was pretty obvious to me where computers were headed: _out_. >And out we went. > >I cause some problems with Crafty, because my rating can fluctuate from 2700- >nearly 3100. And that is a wide swing. I try to avoid putting 'garbage >versions' on ICC/FICS/etc, but I do make mistakes. Or hardware problems will >kill it. And that definitely causes problems. Fortunately, since crafty is >100% 'passive' and _never_ matches anyone unless they specifically ask me to >do so, it doesn't generate complaints. If you stick your hand in a blender, >you really can't blame the blender manufacturer for what happens. :) > >However, there have been _many_ manual operators that have been 'banned' from >servers like ICC for various forms of 'abuse'. I only hope we don't all get >'class-banned' to avoid the headaches.
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.