duncan wrote:if you know some ones elo score you can predict percentage score against different opponents.
based on tests he did with rybka he found the exchange handicap worth about 400 elo points. milov elo is about 3700, so if the match would have been a 4 4 tie then its elo level would have been 3100 as it was 4.5 3.5 then he estimated 3050.
so let's say that 3050 elo means you can score 85% against kramink/anand then assuming this match is a representative sample of rybks's playing strength, and assuming the exchange handicap worth about 400 elo points (at the 2700 level [as he said it is worth more the higher the elo]) he would expect rybka to score 85% against kramink/anand .
that is what he seemed to be saying rather than he was in a position to judge chess skill.
I would like to hear your comment on this and what uri said.
My comment is this: what says that the Elo scale is linear at the upper or lower fringes of the range? What says that a pawn is worth 400? This is a _lot_ of speculation. I'd bet that between 1000-level players, a pawn means very little, while at the super-GM level, it is almost winning.
I'm not into this speculation stuff, and I don't consider it particularly interesting to play these handicapped matches. If people want to play 'em, and watch 'em, more power to 'em. I'm not among 'em however.
Larry kaufman did not say that a pawn equal 400 points at all levels and I believe that he talked about 2700 level so your comment about 1000-level players is not relevant.
I believe that his opinion is based on comp-comp games of rybka against computer opponents with odds.
Both are very different to chess, and the handicaps apply to amateurs and not to professional golfers or Dan go players. Indeed in go the opposite to giving handicaps has occurred in serious go with adjustments to komi being made to attempt to negate the advantage of the first move in all master games, whether the players are 1 Dan or 9 Dan.
Rolf wrote:
...and in chess it's a known tradition. Already Morphy played it and sometimes he then lost such a game.
"Already"? Morphy was near the end of the period of odds games and not the beginning. Its heyday was in the 18th century in games played for money. Almost all Philidor's games were at odds but only 15% of Morphy's, and nowadays it is time handicaps that have replaced material handicaps. By the first half of the twentieth century the very occasional odds games by GMs were exhibition games. The Kasparov-Chapman match (for money) in 2001 was a very rare example of a modern GM playing an odds game.
Rolf wrote:
What a crap!
Isn't there a saying about a fox smells its own hole? Dr Hyatt made just two points - both eminently sensible:
1. It is absurd to quantify a pawn as being worth 400 elo points.
2. Dr Hyatt himself does not find handicap games interesting but accepts that others may do.
Before we bore the other people here with our games (Good Morning, Derek - Rolf, how dare you to dare to dare me with such a simple and shorty note, why dont you also wish me a Good Evening or a Good Night, I'm still your Left Hand?) let's clarify something else. The other day you wrote that the famous game of DB vs Kasparov had been interrupted by the IBM guys, and their lawyer informed me that this wasnt worth to be mentioned, because I had quoted you out of friendship. Now could you please explain what such a break means for a heavyweight fighter like K. and his psyche? Could they have wanted to cheat him psychologically by placing a stronger player than DB himself? Please only facts because I then must debate this with their lawyer here in CCC.
BTW, Derek, best Monty python regards and <cough>
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
duncan wrote:regarding regular computer-human games, he said Hydra, earned a 3000 rating against humans in fourteen games.
is that correct ?
Possible but meaningless. My first tournament, after playing 2 rounds, had me with a rating of over 2600. Because I beat two players rated just over 2200. But I was not a 2600 player in real life.
duncan wrote:if you know some ones elo score you can predict percentage score against different opponents.
based on tests he did with rybka he found the exchange handicap worth about 400 elo points. milov elo is about 3700, so if the match would have been a 4 4 tie then its elo level would have been 3100 as it was 4.5 3.5 then he estimated 3050.
so let's say that 3050 elo means you can score 85% against kramink/anand then assuming this match is a representative sample of rybks's playing strength, and assuming the exchange handicap worth about 400 elo points (at the 2700 level [as he said it is worth more the higher the elo]) he would expect rybka to score 85% against kramink/anand .
that is what he seemed to be saying rather than he was in a position to judge chess skill.
I would like to hear your comment on this and what uri said.
My comment is this: what says that the Elo scale is linear at the upper or lower fringes of the range? What says that a pawn is worth 400? This is a _lot_ of speculation. I'd bet that between 1000-level players, a pawn means very little, while at the super-GM level, it is almost winning.
I'm not into this speculation stuff, and I don't consider it particularly interesting to play these handicapped matches. If people want to play 'em, and watch 'em, more power to 'em. I'm not among 'em however.
What a crap!
In Golf or Go handicaps are part of the game and in chess it's a known tradition. Already Morphy played it and sometimes he then lost such a game.
Grow up. In golf you do _not_ handicap players by say having one play two holes less. Players are rated, just like in USCF chess matches. And those are used to "equalize" the players by adjusting their scores by some delta value. It is not the same as removing a pawn or piece. And when you are competing in major tournaments, the handicap is _never_ used for anything.
duncan wrote:if you know some ones elo score you can predict percentage score against different opponents.
based on tests he did with rybka he found the exchange handicap worth about 400 elo points. milov elo is about 3700, so if the match would have been a 4 4 tie then its elo level would have been 3100 as it was 4.5 3.5 then he estimated 3050.
so let's say that 3050 elo means you can score 85% against kramink/anand then assuming this match is a representative sample of rybks's playing strength, and assuming the exchange handicap worth about 400 elo points (at the 2700 level [as he said it is worth more the higher the elo]) he would expect rybka to score 85% against kramink/anand .
that is what he seemed to be saying rather than he was in a position to judge chess skill.
I would like to hear your comment on this and what uri said.
My comment is this: what says that the Elo scale is linear at the upper or lower fringes of the range? What says that a pawn is worth 400? This is a _lot_ of speculation. I'd bet that between 1000-level players, a pawn means very little, while at the super-GM level, it is almost winning.
I'm not into this speculation stuff, and I don't consider it particularly interesting to play these handicapped matches. If people want to play 'em, and watch 'em, more power to 'em. I'm not among 'em however.
Larry kaufman did not say that a pawn equal 400 points at all levels and I believe that he talked about 2700 level so your comment about 1000-level players is not relevant.
I believe that his opinion is based on comp-comp games of rybka against computer opponents with odds.
Uri
I am not a mind-reader. I responded to what was quoted. So my comment about pawn = 400 at all levels is _not_ irrelevant.
since a pawn handicap at the super-GM level, is almost winning, does it follow that if a computer program with a pawn handicap can draw consistently against a super-GM then it can claim to have a higher elo than all humans (even if from a handicap match we do not know what the elo would be)
duncan wrote:if you know some ones elo score you can predict percentage score against different opponents.
based on tests he did with rybka he found the exchange handicap worth about 400 elo points. milov elo is about 3700, so if the match would have been a 4 4 tie then its elo level would have been 3100 as it was 4.5 3.5 then he estimated 3050.
so let's say that 3050 elo means you can score 85% against kramink/anand then assuming this match is a representative sample of rybks's playing strength, and assuming the exchange handicap worth about 400 elo points (at the 2700 level [as he said it is worth more the higher the elo]) he would expect rybka to score 85% against kramink/anand .
that is what he seemed to be saying rather than he was in a position to judge chess skill.
I would like to hear your comment on this and what uri said.
My comment is this: what says that the Elo scale is linear at the upper or lower fringes of the range? What says that a pawn is worth 400? This is a _lot_ of speculation. I'd bet that between 1000-level players, a pawn means very little, while at the super-GM level, it is almost winning.
I'm not into this speculation stuff, and I don't consider it particularly interesting to play these handicapped matches. If people want to play 'em, and watch 'em, more power to 'em. I'm not among 'em however.
What a crap!
In Golf or Go handicaps are part of the game and in chess it's a known tradition. Already Morphy played it and sometimes he then lost such a game.
Grow up. In golf you do _not_ handicap players by say having one play two holes less. Players are rated, just like in USCF chess matches. And those are used to "equalize" the players by adjusting their scores by some delta value. It is not the same as removing a pawn or piece. And when you are competing in major tournaments, the handicap is _never_ used for anything.
Ok, so what is with Go? Is that also with a Delta?
(Charlie Gibson to loudmouth running mate)
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
duncan wrote:if you know some ones elo score you can predict percentage score against different opponents.
based on tests he did with rybka he found the exchange handicap worth about 400 elo points. milov elo is about 3700, so if the match would have been a 4 4 tie then its elo level would have been 3100 as it was 4.5 3.5 then he estimated 3050.
so let's say that 3050 elo means you can score 85% against kramink/anand then assuming this match is a representative sample of rybks's playing strength, and assuming the exchange handicap worth about 400 elo points (at the 2700 level [as he said it is worth more the higher the elo]) he would expect rybka to score 85% against kramink/anand .
that is what he seemed to be saying rather than he was in a position to judge chess skill.
I would like to hear your comment on this and what uri said.
My comment is this: what says that the Elo scale is linear at the upper or lower fringes of the range? What says that a pawn is worth 400? This is a _lot_ of speculation. I'd bet that between 1000-level players, a pawn means very little, while at the super-GM level, it is almost winning.
I'm not into this speculation stuff, and I don't consider it particularly interesting to play these handicapped matches. If people want to play 'em, and watch 'em, more power to 'em. I'm not among 'em however.
What a crap!
In Golf or Go handicaps are part of the game and in chess it's a known tradition. Already Morphy played it and sometimes he then lost such a game.
Grow up. In golf you do _not_ handicap players by say having one play two holes less. Players are rated, just like in USCF chess matches. And those are used to "equalize" the players by adjusting their scores by some delta value. It is not the same as removing a pawn or piece. And when you are competing in major tournaments, the handicap is _never_ used for anything.
Ok, so what is with Go? Is that also with a Delta?
(Charlie Gibson to loudmouth running mate)
Do you know what the handicapping systems do? They try to differentiate between player skill levels. They are _not_ used in any serious event. So what _are_ you talking about???
duncan wrote:since a pawn handicap at the super-GM level, is almost winning, does it follow that if a computer program with a pawn handicap can draw consistently against a super-GM then it can claim to have a higher elo than all humans (even if from a handicap match we do not know what the elo would be)
quite possibly. But it still is not "interesting chess" IMHO.
BTW are you the same Duncan Roberts from the Mississippi chess tournaments???
duncan wrote:if you know some ones elo score you can predict percentage score against different opponents.
based on tests he did with rybka he found the exchange handicap worth about 400 elo points. milov elo is about 3700, so if the match would have been a 4 4 tie then its elo level would have been 3100 as it was 4.5 3.5 then he estimated 3050.
so let's say that 3050 elo means you can score 85% against kramink/anand then assuming this match is a representative sample of rybks's playing strength, and assuming the exchange handicap worth about 400 elo points (at the 2700 level [as he said it is worth more the higher the elo]) he would expect rybka to score 85% against kramink/anand .
that is what he seemed to be saying rather than he was in a position to judge chess skill.
I would like to hear your comment on this and what uri said.
My comment is this: what says that the Elo scale is linear at the upper or lower fringes of the range? What says that a pawn is worth 400? This is a _lot_ of speculation. I'd bet that between 1000-level players, a pawn means very little, while at the super-GM level, it is almost winning.
I'm not into this speculation stuff, and I don't consider it particularly interesting to play these handicapped matches. If people want to play 'em, and watch 'em, more power to 'em. I'm not among 'em however.
What a crap!
In Golf or Go handicaps are part of the game and in chess it's a known tradition. Already Morphy played it and sometimes he then lost such a game.
Grow up. In golf you do _not_ handicap players by say having one play two holes less. Players are rated, just like in USCF chess matches. And those are used to "equalize" the players by adjusting their scores by some delta value. It is not the same as removing a pawn or piece. And when you are competing in major tournaments, the handicap is _never_ used for anything.
Ok, so what is with Go? Is that also with a Delta?
(Charlie Gibson to loudmouth running mate)
Do you know what the handicapping systems do? They try to differentiate between player skill levels. They are _not_ used in any serious event. So what _are_ you talking about???
Please tone down or cool down as you might say down there. I'm specifically talking about such experimental events like this handicap etc match between Rybka 3 and the GM. Pllease try to concentrate on the topic and dont mention the same arguments that were already refutated. The IBM/DB guys are guilty, not Kasparov, all we should do now is exactly defining where and how they cheated. Cheated in my version not yours that implies something with justice issues. This is only for the sake of science methods, just like the political craziness that the USA is not man enough to accept The Hague for itself too but it wants to bring everybody else there. But such topics are for CTF. Here we talk about the science cheat.
And now Bob, no more blinking!
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
