Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 16:04:11 12/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 1999 at 15:24:45, Charles Unruh wrote: >On December 10, 1999 at 14:49:07, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On December 10, 1999 at 14:34:22, Charles Unruh wrote: >>>On December 10, 1999 at 13:24:32, Roger wrote: >>[snip] >>>>Recalibration is inevitable, because GM-computer games will become much more >>>>common. >>> >>> >>>Well not inevitable as no one is currently doing it, but hopefully it will get >>>done soon, we may already have enough rebel games to start with, if not, then >>>with a few more games with a few willing masters on ICC and we'll have enough to >>>rate that program. As for Junior, I suspect there are enough games if not then >>>close. And a few games on ICC or FICS for that matter and it would be a good go >>>to start recalibrating the ssdf, to finally go ahead and prove that i was right >>>all along(Heck that ICC was right based on the ICC poll we had cincerning GM >>>strength. Most people thought Comps were GM strength!) :). >> >>Rebel's GM challenge is an example where human players of known strength are >>pitted against a computer under tournament conditions and time control with >>money at stake. >> >>So you are mistaken that nobody is doing it. > >No I am not mistaken. I said that nobody was recalibrating the ssdf. I said >that with these results the ssdf could be recalibrated, which was the point of >me startying the thread!! Ok yoy are right, and totally wrong about the SSDF-list is (was) calibrated against human players during tournament conditions and not in single-game matches with double increment time-controls. It´s like comparing a 1500 m runner against a participant in a hepathlon contest in his last branch (sorry I don´t know the name). I guess it is like me a lot of people who have participiate in tournaments in a another town (country) and remember who they feeled in the last round after a lot of dining and wining. Compare these results against the weekly play in your club. At least a computer can! Bertil SSDF > However, it will require that the >>SSDF use hardware equivalent to what Ed is using for some tests in order to >>understand how the tests relate to one another. > >I do believe for total accuracy we would need to of course test against the >rebel on the hardware that was used. Though, i think their could be some >calculation done with some relative closeness of a howmuch strength rebel might >lose in strength on the lesser hardware though this would certainly not be the >most reccomended thing to do. > >Also, it is a single program >>and there are not a lot of games. But no one besides Ed seems to be ready to >>put their money where their mouth is. > >Well that's fine that it's a single program(though i did mention that Junior >seems to have a good number of games too), If i was 1600 and played a 2200 20 >games and lost every game then that wouldn't tell me much about my strength. >however if i was 2160 strength and played a 2200, losing and drawing some in a >20 game match vs a 2200 that would tell me something about my strength. Since >the progs follow this second scenario of being relatively close in strength 20 >games against a single program say H7 vs Rebel(with the calculated rating from >human games), that would tell me something( at least something more) about the >strength of H7. It of course would be more Ideal to have at least 3 progs >tested vs humans. I suggested a starting point of Junior and Rebel. H7 may >have some games on record i don't know of them. I picked Rebel, because the >games are in a series, and aren't being artificially selected out. Meaning >that, I could probably round up 6 games of H6, but that would be artificial, >because i could pick all wins, which wouldn't make sense to do. Though i do >think it would be ok to say add together 2 tournaments. Say H7 played in >tournament "A" and Tournament "B" then as long as i included all games i feel >that it would be satisfactory to add "A"+"B" to calculate a rating. As i was >saying I think Junior may have a record that fits the just mentioned scenario. >> >>I don't think that ICC or FICS games should be compared to try and calibrate a >>rating. I doubt if the GM's are very serious most of the time and expect that >>they are using the computers as sounding boards to test strategies for tactical >>weaknesses. If I were a GM, that's what I would use them for.
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.