Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 01:10:14 03/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 18, 1999 at 00:09:24, Jonathan Goldstein wrote: >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. we are a ways away from that point at present. But one day...
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.