Author: Jonathan Goldstein
Date: 21:09:24 03/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 1999 at 22:18:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... It wouldn't matter anyway because if GMs dont stand a chance, there is no point in playing them. When/if this happens, a server mainly devoted to computer players will become very practical.
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.