Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 01:13:12 03/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 18, 1999 at 00:06:12, Mark Young 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. > >I agree, I just did not understand why you brought this up in defense of the >admins at Chess4You. I was not playing humans at all, but the two strongest >computer programs on their server. Your comment seemed pointless to that post, >but I do agree with most of it. > >I may not have been clear that I was playing strong programs. And I in no way >was blowing the rating of other human players. As I was provisional and did not >change any programs or humans rating. At this point the server was just trying >to find what Hiarcs7 rating was. > never having been there, and not planning on going there, I don't know the admins... and didn't intend to 'support' them. As I don't know enough. I was explaining _how_ ratings can be abused. And every time "we" (we == computers) do something like that, it is one more black mark against "us" (us == the collective set of computers on a server). Just like USCF/FIDE, we only have so many boo-boos before our collective time is 'up'. > > >> >>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.