Amazing results of LeelaKnightOdds-Dev

[lkaufman]

Something is clearly wrong with the bot and it seems not to use the opponent time.

https://lichess.org/Zz9FRZ3J#163

What is wrong with 82...e5 when the opponent has only 2.4 seconds on the clock in 1+0 game instead of allowing a draw with the 50 move rule?
The excuse of not knowing who is the opponent is not convincing.
Even if you assume that you play against a strong GM I believe 82...e5 is winning when the strong GM has only 2.4 seconds to finish the game.

You are correct that the bot does not take into consideration how much time the opponent has. In principle that should help, but it is not simple to use this information and other things have higher priority now. Simply reducing draws in general is much more important, and has already been done for the queenforknight bot. The goal has been to win matches against "fair" opponents, not to run up the score by avoiding draws against weaker than fair opponents, but now clearly most opponents of all bots are much below "fair".

[Uri Blass]

Something is clearly wrong with the bot and it seems not to use the opponent time.

https://lichess.org/Zz9FRZ3J#163

What is wrong with 82...e5 when the opponent has only 2.4 seconds on the clock in 1+0 game instead of allowing a draw with the 50 move rule?
The excuse of not knowing who is the opponent is not convincing.
Even if you assume that you play against a strong GM I believe 82...e5 is winning when the strong GM has only 2.4 seconds to finish the game.

You are correct that the bot does not take into consideration how much time the opponent has. In principle that should help, but it is not simple to use this information and other things have higher priority now. Simply reducing draws in general is much more important, and has already been done for the queenforknight bot. The goal has been to win matches against "fair" opponents, not to run up the score by avoiding draws against weaker than fair opponents, but now clearly most opponents of all bots are much below "fair".

I think that maybe you need some leaderboard tables:
one for bullet time control,one for blitz time control and one for rapid time control.

[Marcus91]

Something is clearly wrong with the bot and it seems not to use the opponent time.

https://lichess.org/Zz9FRZ3J#163

What is wrong with 82...e5 when the opponent has only 2.4 seconds on the clock in 1+0 game instead of allowing a draw with the 50 move rule?
The excuse of not knowing who is the opponent is not convincing.
Even if you assume that you play against a strong GM I believe 82...e5 is winning when the strong GM has only 2.4 seconds to finish the game.

You are correct that the bot does not take into consideration how much time the opponent has. In principle that should help, but it is not simple to use this information and other things have higher priority now. Simply reducing draws in general is much more important, and has already been done for the queenforknight bot. The goal has been to win matches against "fair" opponents, not to run up the score by avoiding draws against weaker than fair opponents, but now clearly most opponents of all bots are much below "fair".

I think that maybe you need some leaderboard tables:
one for bullet time control,one for blitz time control and one for rapid time control.

Well, I like to find a relationship between time control and game strength, however drawing in quick tc is much easier than win in slower tc, players like "Catecan" or "Brunetticus" seem to do just that, so maybe I should add an arbitrary rule, like halve 'K' for all draws?

[Brunetti]

maybe I should add an arbitrary rule, like halve 'K' for all draws?

Doing this is like saying that a win is worth 4 draws, which means you're changing the rules of chess and, consequently, the consistency of the Elo formula. I'm not saying this because I'm currently drawing games, but because that's just how it is

Alex

[Marcus91]

Something is clearly wrong with the bot and it seems not to use the opponent time.

https://lichess.org/Zz9FRZ3J#163

What is wrong with 82...e5 when the opponent has only 2.4 seconds on the clock in 1+0 game instead of allowing a draw with the 50 move rule?
The excuse of not knowing who is the opponent is not convincing.
Even if you assume that you play against a strong GM I believe 82...e5 is winning when the strong GM has only 2.4 seconds to finish the game.

You are correct that the bot does not take into consideration how much time the opponent has. In principle that should help, but it is not simple to use this information and other things have higher priority now. Simply reducing draws in general is much more important, and has already been done for the queenforknight bot. The goal has been to win matches against "fair" opponents, not to run up the score by avoiding draws against weaker than fair opponents, but now clearly most opponents of all bots are much below "fair".

I think that maybe you need some leaderboard tables:
one for bullet time control,one for blitz time control and one for rapid time control.

Well, I like to find a relationship between time control and game strength, however drawing in quick tc is much easier than win in slower tc, players like "Catecan" or "Brunetticus" seem to do just that, so maybe I should add an arbitrary rule, like halve 'K' for all draws?

All draws have 'K' halved now, play for the win!
Other changes: K=40 for the first 30 games, K = 20 up to 150 games, K=10 for subsequent games

[Father]

maybe I should add an arbitrary rule, like halve 'K' for all draws?

Doing this is like saying that a win is worth 4 draws, which means you're changing the rules of chess and, consequently, the consistency of the Elo formula. I'm not saying this because I'm currently drawing games, but because that's just how it is

Alex

A new day on the road. I wish you all a happy day. I slept a few hours in order to recover the strength of the intracellular component of my cells, neurons and molecules. After getting out of bed and standing up, I noticed with surprise that apparently the laws of chess have been modified in order to contain my rise to number one in the ranking of the hundred best chess players against computers, given my status as an intruder in the ring of the fight between man and machine. Of course I feel proud of the work I have done in my capacity as being, having been, and seeking to continue being, a "hunter of computers and AI." Of course I have no interest in participating in a contest where legislation is passed against me to favor others. The best chess player against the machines is the one who scores the most points in the battle between man and machine. It is not a question of being or not being a titled player, of being or not being a world champion, of having or not having elo, of carrying one flag or another. Winning is an independent matter, winning, losing, or drawing, under the parameters of time, law, life, strategy and self-awareness. I am not afraid... it has always been clear to me that the maxim that indicates the way and expresses: "The truth will set you free." My standings are in the laws of the quadrilateral of all, by all and for all.

[Marcus91]

maybe I should add an arbitrary rule, like halve 'K' for all draws?

Doing this is like saying that a win is worth 4 draws, which means you're changing the rules of chess and, consequently, the consistency of the Elo formula. I'm not saying this because I'm currently drawing games, but because that's just how it is

Alex

The Elo formula remains consistent if you consider draws as half the weight. Four draws are not equal to one win, but rather one win and one loss. I'm not making any difference between players. If you draw against a bot rated higher than you, you will continue to rise, just slowly. By giving half the weight to draws the model assumes a better fit, this means that those who drew a lot were overestimated and those who drew little were under estimated, given that lichess blitz rating is the reference here

[Father]

maybe I should add an arbitrary rule, like halve 'K' for all draws?

Doing this is like saying that a win is worth 4 draws, which means you're changing the rules of chess and, consequently, the consistency of the Elo formula. I'm not saying this because I'm currently drawing games, but because that's just how it is

Alex

The Elo formula remains consistent if you consider draws as half the weight. Four draws are not equal to one win, but rather one win and one loss. I'm not making any difference between players. If you draw against a bot rated higher than you, you will continue to rise, just slowly. By giving half the weight to draws the model assumes a better fit, this means that those who drew a lot were overestimated and those who drew little were under estimated, given that lichess blitz rating is the reference here

Thank you Marcus91 for your time and your message. You know that I am not a mathematician, so I would like you to explain it well and clear up my doubts. Let's take an example context: I find myself in a man versus machine challenge in which myself and the hundred best ranked human and machine players in the world participate, all fighting against the machines in the Harvard Cup style, of a group of coffee and coffee players. not federated, some of us are self-taught and others with non-school education, obtained outside of schools, others excellent representatives of schools. We all know in the competition that it is a race for knowledge, to obtain the
higher score. If in such a hypothetical 20-game competition I obtain 20 draws and Carlsen obtains 9 victories and one draw, does it mean that I would be the champion of the hypothetical tournament and the one with the highest rating given my best performance? If your answer is yes, then my duty is to continue playing, otherwise I don't see any point in doing so. Thank you in advance Marcus91. I remind everyone: "Any protectorate that closes the path to runners for the sole reason of competing without shoes in the marathon is an absurdity."

[Uri Blass]

maybe I should add an arbitrary rule, like halve 'K' for all draws?

Doing this is like saying that a win is worth 4 draws, which means you're changing the rules of chess and, consequently, the consistency of the Elo formula. I'm not saying this because I'm currently drawing games, but because that's just how it is

Alex

The Elo formula remains consistent if you consider draws as half the weight. Four draws are not equal to one win, but rather one win and one loss. I'm not making any difference between players. If you draw against a bot rated higher than you, you will continue to rise, just slowly. By giving half the weight to draws the model assumes a better fit, this means that those who drew a lot were overestimated and those who drew little were under estimated, given that lichess blitz rating is the reference here

You are right that 4 draws equal to one win and one loss but
I still agree with the point of Brunetti.

With the new rule 2 draws and 2 losses are basically equivalent to 1 draw and 2 losses that is a lower percentage.

I think players could play differently in order to increase their rating.

Even I may play differently in case of knowing the new rule and there were draws when I had a winning position and did not want to risk playing for a win because I was in time trouble and prefered repetition and if I know this new rule I could do differently in part of these cases for higher rating because it is better to have a probability of 24% to win and probability of 26% to lose and not probability of 100% for a draw.

[Uri Blass]

maybe I should add an arbitrary rule, like halve 'K' for all draws?

Doing this is like saying that a win is worth 4 draws, which means you're changing the rules of chess and, consequently, the consistency of the Elo formula. I'm not saying this because I'm currently drawing games, but because that's just how it is

Alex

The Elo formula remains consistent if you consider draws as half the weight. Four draws are not equal to one win, but rather one win and one loss. I'm not making any difference between players. If you draw against a bot rated higher than you, you will continue to rise, just slowly. By giving half the weight to draws the model assumes a better fit, this means that those who drew a lot were overestimated and those who drew little were under estimated, given that lichess blitz rating is the reference here

Thank you Marcus91 for your time and your message. You know that I am not a mathematician, so I would like you to explain it well and clear up my doubts. Let's take an example context: I find myself in a man versus machine challenge in which myself and the hundred best ranked human and machine players in the world participate, all fighting against the machines in the Harvard Cup style, of a group of coffee and coffee players. not federated, some of us are self-taught and others with non-school education, obtained outside of schools, others excellent representatives of schools. We all know in the competition that it is a race for knowledge, to obtain the
higher score. If in such a hypothetical 20-game competition I obtain 20 draws and Carlsen obtains 9 victories and one draw, does it mean that I would be the champion of the hypothetical tournament and the one with the highest rating given my best performance? If your answer is yes, then my duty is to continue playing, otherwise I don't see any point in doing so. Thank you in advance Marcus91. I remind everyone: "Any protectorate that closes the path to runners for the sole reason of competing without shoes in the marathon is an absurdity."

I understand that basically 50% will give you equal rating to the machine if you play enough games.
20 games are not enough to get a stable rating but I think that 200 games are enough.

The main problem is when you get less than 50%
If you get a draw and a loss in every 2 games that is 25% your rating is going to be smaller than a player who get 20% by a win and 4 losses every 5 games assuming a lot of games by both sides.

I think that it is not fair even if I get a better place in the table relative to humans by the new rule.