Author: Charles Unruh
Date: 17:36:11 12/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 1999 at 19:04:11, Bertil Eklund wrote: >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 I never said that it was. All i said is that we could come up with a way to rate some programs, in this case Rebel, and use that too recalibrate the ssdf ratings. 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! I'm not sure what you are trying to say. > >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.