Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:18:32 03/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 1999 at 14:14:05, Mark Young wrote: >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 > > good, because I intended no 'put-down' at all. But we are at a new 'era' where almost all computer programs can blow off GM players at blitz, many can blow them off at action, and it won't be all that long before we blow them off at 40/2hr. In 1975 the only people fighting computers were the 14-1500 players, because everyone else could beat them. Then by 1980 it was up to the expert ranks. In 1981 we had belle and cray blitz and now the master's were getting thumped and joined the bandwagon. It is only a matter of time before the GM's say 'enough' and _that_ will definitely be _that_ I am afraid... > 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.