Amazing results of LeelaKnightOdds-Dev

[Uri Blass]

I played against her lately at 15+10 with white when I get clearly more than 60%.

My score against it with white when I opened 1.e4 or 1.d4 was 10.5-1.5(I did a mistake when I decided to try in some games 1.c4 or 1.f4 or 1.c3 thinking wrongly it is going to be very easy for me to win also with these moves and I practically lost 4-1 with these moves as first move(I guess I may get more than 50% at 15+10 with a random move as white but still worse than 1.e4 or 1.d4).

If I win 10 games in a row at 15+10 I plan to try harder levels.

[lkaufman]

I played against her lately at 15+10 with white when I get clearly more than 60%.

My score against it with white when I opened 1.e4 or 1.d4 was 10.5-1.5(I did a mistake when I decided to try in some games 1.c4 or 1.f4 or 1.c3 thinking wrongly it is going to be very easy for me to win also with these moves and I practically lost 4-1 with these moves as first move(I guess I may get more than 50% at 15+10 with a random move as white but still worse than 1.e4 or 1.d4).

If I win 10 games in a row at 15+10 I plan to try harder levels.

It sure looks like the elo deduction from Leela's rating when it plays Black needs to be raised. Maybe I'll do some statistics to try to determine a better value. At least 150 probably is justified, maybe even more. I think this is also true at the other handicaps, there is a reason that historically piece odds always meant the odds-giver played White (not pawn odds though, which were considered to be too small for widespread use unless the odds-giver had to play Black ("pawn and move"). There were a few games where Morphy played Black giving knight odds ("knight and move") to players midway between knight odds and rook odds level, that's about the extent of historical piece odds games where the giver played Black.

[Uri Blass]

I played against her lately at 15+10 with white when I get clearly more than 60%.

My score against it with white when I opened 1.e4 or 1.d4 was 10.5-1.5(I did a mistake when I decided to try in some games 1.c4 or 1.f4 or 1.c3 thinking wrongly it is going to be very easy for me to win also with these moves and I practically lost 4-1 with these moves as first move(I guess I may get more than 50% at 15+10 with a random move as white but still worse than 1.e4 or 1.d4).

If I win 10 games in a row at 15+10 I plan to try harder levels.

It sure looks like the elo deduction from Leela's rating when it plays Black needs to be raised. Maybe I'll do some statistics to try to determine a better value. At least 150 probably is justified, maybe even more. I think this is also true at the other handicaps, there is a reason that historically piece odds always meant the odds-giver played White (not pawn odds though, which were considered to be too small for widespread use unless the odds-giver had to play Black ("pawn and move"). There were a few games where Morphy played Black giving knight odds ("knight and move") to players midway between knight odds and rook odds level, that's about the extent of historical piece odds games where the giver played Black.

I wonder if it is correct against engines or alternatively for first game without preperation or for shuffle chess.

[Uri Blass]

I played against her lately at 15+10 with white when I get clearly more than 60%.

My score against it with white when I opened 1.e4 or 1.d4 was 10.5-1.5(I did a mistake when I decided to try in some games 1.c4 or 1.f4 or 1.c3 thinking wrongly it is going to be very easy for me to win also with these moves and I practically lost 4-1 with these moves as first move(I guess I may get more than 50% at 15+10 with a random move as white but still worse than 1.e4 or 1.d4).

If I win 10 games in a row at 15+10 I plan to try harder levels.

It sure looks like the elo deduction from Leela's rating when it plays Black needs to be raised. Maybe I'll do some statistics to try to determine a better value. At least 150 probably is justified, maybe even more. I think this is also true at the other handicaps, there is a reason that historically piece odds always meant the odds-giver played White (not pawn odds though, which were considered to be too small for widespread use unless the odds-giver had to play Black ("pawn and move"). There were a few games where Morphy played Black giving knight odds ("knight and move") to players midway between knight odds and rook odds level, that's about the extent of historical piece odds games where the giver played Black.

I think that for a very big handicap the difference should be smaller.

I do not believe that there is a big difference between white and black for queen and 2 rooks handicap and it is possible to beat the weakest humans in lichess with this handicap.

[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

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.

It's an arbitrary rule, like in soccer where a win earns three points and a draw earns one. The rationale behind this system is as follows:

1. Discourages excessively drawish playstyles

2. Promotes balanced time controls – This system pushes players toward time controls where they perform closer to their true skill level, discouraging the trend of favoring ultra-fast formats simply because they make it easier to grind out draws and rating points.

3. Improves rating accuracy – By adjusting the rating system to reflect more dynamic play, it aligns better with the Lichess blitz rating, ensuring a more accurate representation of a player's actual strength.

It's a thoughtful adjustment designed to balance the competitive landscape and encourage more engaging play, even if it might feel arbitrary

Good morning Marcus91. I hope you woke up well and continue well.
I would like you to help me with two questions, I will be very grateful in advance:
- The first question is for me to know the reason why my Elo score dropped approximately between yesterday and today by 7 points despite having reached 30 draws yesterday, most of these with my black.
- The second is if we were applying the standard chess rules on Elo scoring, at this point what would my Elo be?
- The third is that LeelaQuernOdds definitely seems to refuse to play with the black chips.
In advance I thank you and the entire LeelaOdds team. Happy day I wish you.

I'll try to answer, Marcus91 may have better answers. 1.You have played enough games so that your rating will only depend on your draw percentage (and color choice), unless you change time controls or win a game. The number of draws is not relevant, only the percentage of draws. If you improve that, your rating will go up. 2. If the draws were fully counted instead of half counted, I believe your rating would be about 120 elo higher. But if they were fully counted, we probably would have modified the settings to have Leela try harder to avoid draws. 3. Leela has played various players today as Black. Probably it just happened that when you tried to play as White, four people were already playing the bot. I would like to add though that your games suggest that the difference between playing White and Black is even more than the 100 elo we assumed. My calculations indicated that the gap was at least 150 elo in general, but we didn't yet have enough data to justify using such a high value. Maybe we'll redo the math in the near future and adjust this. It is remarkable to me how much easier it is for you to make draws when you have White than with Black. Of course in normal chess it is easier to draw with White than Black, but I wouldn't guess that it would be such a dramatic difference at queen odds! I'll have to check whether this applies to most players or just to you. Naturally the rules are based on the overall experience, not individual players.

I agree with this response.

I'm happy to see different strategy by different players

[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."

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.

It's an arbitrary rule, like in soccer where a win earns three points and a draw earns one. The rationale behind this system is as follows:

1. Discourages excessively drawish playstyles

2. Promotes balanced time controls – This system pushes players toward time controls where they perform closer to their true skill level, discouraging the trend of favoring ultra-fast formats simply because they make it easier to grind out draws and rating points.

3. Improves rating accuracy – By adjusting the rating system to reflect more dynamic play, it aligns better with the Lichess blitz rating, ensuring a more accurate representation of a player's actual strength.

It's a thoughtful adjustment designed to balance the competitive landscape and encourage more engaging play, even if it might feel arbitrary

Good morning Marcus91. I hope you woke up well and continue well.
I would like you to help me with two questions, I will be very grateful in advance:
- The first question is for me to know the reason why my Elo score dropped approximately between yesterday and today by 7 points despite having reached 30 draws yesterday, most of these with my black.
- The second is if we were applying the standard chess rules on Elo scoring, at this point what would my Elo be?
- The third is that LeelaQuernOdds definitely seems to refuse to play with the black chips.
In advance I thank you and the entire LeelaOdds team. Happy day I wish you.

I'll try to answer, Marcus91 may have better answers. 1.You have played enough games so that your rating will only depend on your draw percentage (and color choice), unless you change time controls or win a game. The number of draws is not relevant, only the percentage of draws. If you improve that, your rating will go up. 2. If the draws were fully counted instead of half counted, I believe your rating would be about 120 elo higher. But if they were fully counted, we probably would have modified the settings to have Leela try harder to avoid draws. 3. Leela has played various players today as Black. Probably it just happened that when you tried to play as White, four people were already playing the bot. I would like to add though that your games suggest that the difference between playing White and Black is even more than the 100 elo we assumed. My calculations indicated that the gap was at least 150 elo in general, but we didn't yet have enough data to justify using such a high value. Maybe we'll redo the math in the near future and adjust this. It is remarkable to me how much easier it is for you to make draws when you have White than with Black. Of course in normal chess it is easier to draw with White than Black, but I wouldn't guess that it would be such a dramatic difference at queen odds! I'll have to check whether this applies to most players or just to you. Naturally the rules are based on the overall experience, not individual players.

I agree with this response.

I'm happy to see different strategy by different players

Thank you very much for the information Dr. Larry Kaufman and Marcus91. You know well that my strength is not mathematics... only the common and philosophical sense of life. It happens and it happens that for me it is a dismay to continue playing against the bots. I simply apply: #pM - #pY / #games x 700= X applied to my ribal's elo. It turns out that by cutting zeros 3 days ago my results have increased but even so it has only lowered my score. So then it makes no sense for me to continue. By common sense I perceive all formulas to be unfair. I could equate my strengths to those of the bot at 2895 elo and it still wouldn't be reflected. That's why I won't continue harming myself even more. My partial Elo calculation tests show me other results, the accumulated one is only a matter of damages. Thus there is no type of motivation for me to continue playing, apart from the initial punishment of counting ties, words more words less, I interpret the counting system clearly as "anti Father." It is the same as outlining a schedule of the Tour de France with time trial raves, leaving out the climbers. So let the top 100 be your time trialists, without Father on board.

[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.

It's an arbitrary rule, like in soccer where a win earns three points and a draw earns one. The rationale behind this system is as follows:

1. Discourages excessively drawish playstyles

2. Promotes balanced time controls – This system pushes players toward time controls where they perform closer to their true skill level, discouraging the trend of favoring ultra-fast formats simply because they make it easier to grind out draws and rating points.

3. Improves rating accuracy – By adjusting the rating system to reflect more dynamic play, it aligns better with the Lichess blitz rating, ensuring a more accurate representation of a player's actual strength.

It's a thoughtful adjustment designed to balance the competitive landscape and encourage more engaging play, even if it might feel arbitrary

Good morning Marcus91. I hope you woke up well and continue well.
I would like you to help me with two questions, I will be very grateful in advance:
- The first question is for me to know the reason why my Elo score dropped approximately between yesterday and today by 7 points despite having reached 30 draws yesterday, most of these with my black.
- The second is if we were applying the standard chess rules on Elo scoring, at this point what would my Elo be?
- The third is that LeelaQuernOdds definitely seems to refuse to play with the black chips.
In advance I thank you and the entire LeelaOdds team. Happy day I wish you.

I'll try to answer, Marcus91 may have better answers. 1.You have played enough games so that your rating will only depend on your draw percentage (and color choice), unless you change time controls or win a game. The number of draws is not relevant, only the percentage of draws. If you improve that, your rating will go up. 2. If the draws were fully counted instead of half counted, I believe your rating would be about 120 elo higher. But if they were fully counted, we probably would have modified the settings to have Leela try harder to avoid draws. 3. Leela has played various players today as Black. Probably it just happened that when you tried to play as White, four people were already playing the bot. I would like to add though that your games suggest that the difference between playing White and Black is even more than the 100 elo we assumed. My calculations indicated that the gap was at least 150 elo in general, but we didn't yet have enough data to justify using such a high value. Maybe we'll redo the math in the near future and adjust this. It is remarkable to me how much easier it is for you to make draws when you have White than with Black. Of course in normal chess it is easier to draw with White than Black, but I wouldn't guess that it would be such a dramatic difference at queen odds! I'll have to check whether this applies to most players or just to you. Naturally the rules are based on the overall experience, not individual players.

I agree with this response.

I'm happy to see different strategy by different players

Thank you very much for the information Dr. Larry Kaufman and Marcus91. You know well that my strength is not mathematics... only the common and philosophical sense of life. It happens and it happens that for me it is a dismay to continue playing against the bots. I simply apply: #pM - #pY / #games x 700= X applied to my ribal's elo. It turns out that by cutting zeros 3 days ago my results have increased but even so it has only lowered my score. So then it makes no sense for me to continue. By common sense I perceive all formulas to be unfair. I could equate my strengths to those of the bot at 2895 elo and it still wouldn't be reflected. That's why I won't continue harming myself even more. My partial Elo calculation tests show me other results, the accumulated one is only a matter of damages. Thus there is no type of motivation for me to continue playing, apart from the initial punishment of counting ties, words more words less, I interpret the counting system clearly as "anti Father." It is the same as outlining a schedule of the Tour de France with time trial raves, leaving out the climbers. So let the top 100 be your time trialists, without Father on board.

1)I agree that the system is anti-father and this is the reason I decided earlier also to stop to play against the bot but after you decided to go back to play I decided that if you play I also play.

2)I think the best strategy to be at the top is to play for a win and not for a draw.
I believe it is possible to beat the bot at 1+1 and even at 1+0 (no strong GM's play based on my knowledge and if some strong GM is going to join then I expect him to get rating of 2900 by getting clearly better results that you get in 1+0 or 1+1)

I tried to beat the bot 10 times in a row at 15+10 with white but failed and got only 9.5-0.5 result in my last 10 games.
I already had a record of 8 wins in a row but only drew in game 9.

[lkaufman]

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.

It's an arbitrary rule, like in soccer where a win earns three points and a draw earns one. The rationale behind this system is as follows:

1. Discourages excessively drawish playstyles

2. Promotes balanced time controls – This system pushes players toward time controls where they perform closer to their true skill level, discouraging the trend of favoring ultra-fast formats simply because they make it easier to grind out draws and rating points.

3. Improves rating accuracy – By adjusting the rating system to reflect more dynamic play, it aligns better with the Lichess blitz rating, ensuring a more accurate representation of a player's actual strength.

It's a thoughtful adjustment designed to balance the competitive landscape and encourage more engaging play, even if it might feel arbitrary

Good morning Marcus91. I hope you woke up well and continue well.
I would like you to help me with two questions, I will be very grateful in advance:
- The first question is for me to know the reason why my Elo score dropped approximately between yesterday and today by 7 points despite having reached 30 draws yesterday, most of these with my black.
- The second is if we were applying the standard chess rules on Elo scoring, at this point what would my Elo be?
- The third is that LeelaQuernOdds definitely seems to refuse to play with the black chips.
In advance I thank you and the entire LeelaOdds team. Happy day I wish you.

I'll try to answer, Marcus91 may have better answers. 1.You have played enough games so that your rating will only depend on your draw percentage (and color choice), unless you change time controls or win a game. The number of draws is not relevant, only the percentage of draws. If you improve that, your rating will go up. 2. If the draws were fully counted instead of half counted, I believe your rating would be about 120 elo higher. But if they were fully counted, we probably would have modified the settings to have Leela try harder to avoid draws. 3. Leela has played various players today as Black. Probably it just happened that when you tried to play as White, four people were already playing the bot. I would like to add though that your games suggest that the difference between playing White and Black is even more than the 100 elo we assumed. My calculations indicated that the gap was at least 150 elo in general, but we didn't yet have enough data to justify using such a high value. Maybe we'll redo the math in the near future and adjust this. It is remarkable to me how much easier it is for you to make draws when you have White than with Black. Of course in normal chess it is easier to draw with White than Black, but I wouldn't guess that it would be such a dramatic difference at queen odds! I'll have to check whether this applies to most players or just to you. Naturally the rules are based on the overall experience, not individual players.

I agree with this response.

I'm happy to see different strategy by different players

Thank you very much for the information Dr. Larry Kaufman and Marcus91. You know well that my strength is not mathematics... only the common and philosophical sense of life. It happens and it happens that for me it is a dismay to continue playing against the bots. I simply apply: #pM - #pY / #games x 700= X applied to my ribal's elo. It turns out that by cutting zeros 3 days ago my results have increased but even so it has only lowered my score. So then it makes no sense for me to continue. By common sense I perceive all formulas to be unfair. I could equate my strengths to those of the bot at 2895 elo and it still wouldn't be reflected. That's why I won't continue harming myself even more. My partial Elo calculation tests show me other results, the accumulated one is only a matter of damages. Thus there is no type of motivation for me to continue playing, apart from the initial punishment of counting ties, words more words less, I interpret the counting system clearly as "anti Father." It is the same as outlining a schedule of the Tour de France with time trial raves, leaving out the climbers. So let the top 100 be your time trialists, without Father on board.

Today there were no less than 68 bullet games played against the bot by players rated over 2800 in bullet (!!), all at 1'0". They managed to win seven games, draw four. If they continue to play the bot, we may see some of them rise to the top places in the list. If you or anyone else manages to score 50% in a hundred games vs. the bot playing White at 1'0" chess, your rating (or their rating) should come close to the 2895 bot rating under those conditions, but I doubt that anyone can do that. Maybe Magnus or Hikaru might have a chance to score 50%, but I rather doubt it based on the results I see. It would be an interesting match. But at 1'1", I think that strong GMs and even bullet-specialist IMs might exceed 50%. At that time control, Leela is only moderately leading against players rated in the 2800s bullet, so perhaps around 2900 is the break-even point for that time control, and there are many players on Lichess rated above this in bullet. Note Leela played White in about 84% of those 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

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.

It's an arbitrary rule, like in soccer where a win earns three points and a draw earns one. The rationale behind this system is as follows:

1. Discourages excessively drawish playstyles

2. Promotes balanced time controls – This system pushes players toward time controls where they perform closer to their true skill level, discouraging the trend of favoring ultra-fast formats simply because they make it easier to grind out draws and rating points.

3. Improves rating accuracy – By adjusting the rating system to reflect more dynamic play, it aligns better with the Lichess blitz rating, ensuring a more accurate representation of a player's actual strength.

It's a thoughtful adjustment designed to balance the competitive landscape and encourage more engaging play, even if it might feel arbitrary

Good morning Marcus91. I hope you woke up well and continue well.
I would like you to help me with two questions, I will be very grateful in advance:
- The first question is for me to know the reason why my Elo score dropped approximately between yesterday and today by 7 points despite having reached 30 draws yesterday, most of these with my black.
- The second is if we were applying the standard chess rules on Elo scoring, at this point what would my Elo be?
- The third is that LeelaQuernOdds definitely seems to refuse to play with the black chips.
In advance I thank you and the entire LeelaOdds team. Happy day I wish you.

I'll try to answer, Marcus91 may have better answers. 1.You have played enough games so that your rating will only depend on your draw percentage (and color choice), unless you change time controls or win a game. The number of draws is not relevant, only the percentage of draws. If you improve that, your rating will go up. 2. If the draws were fully counted instead of half counted, I believe your rating would be about 120 elo higher. But if they were fully counted, we probably would have modified the settings to have Leela try harder to avoid draws. 3. Leela has played various players today as Black. Probably it just happened that when you tried to play as White, four people were already playing the bot. I would like to add though that your games suggest that the difference between playing White and Black is even more than the 100 elo we assumed. My calculations indicated that the gap was at least 150 elo in general, but we didn't yet have enough data to justify using such a high value. Maybe we'll redo the math in the near future and adjust this. It is remarkable to me how much easier it is for you to make draws when you have White than with Black. Of course in normal chess it is easier to draw with White than Black, but I wouldn't guess that it would be such a dramatic difference at queen odds! I'll have to check whether this applies to most players or just to you. Naturally the rules are based on the overall experience, not individual players.

I agree with this response.

I'm happy to see different strategy by different players

Thank you very much for the information Dr. Larry Kaufman and Marcus91. You know well that my strength is not mathematics... only the common and philosophical sense of life. It happens and it happens that for me it is a dismay to continue playing against the bots. I simply apply: #pM - #pY / #games x 700= X applied to my ribal's elo. It turns out that by cutting zeros 3 days ago my results have increased but even so it has only lowered my score. So then it makes no sense for me to continue. By common sense I perceive all formulas to be unfair. I could equate my strengths to those of the bot at 2895 elo and it still wouldn't be reflected. That's why I won't continue harming myself even more. My partial Elo calculation tests show me other results, the accumulated one is only a matter of damages. Thus there is no type of motivation for me to continue playing, apart from the initial punishment of counting ties, words more words less, I interpret the counting system clearly as "anti Father." It is the same as outlining a schedule of the Tour de France with time trial raves, leaving out the climbers. So let the top 100 be your time trialists, without Father on board.

1)I agree that the system is anti-father and this is the reason I decided earlier also to stop to play against the bot but after you decided to go back to play I decided that if you play I also play.

2)I think the best strategy to be at the top is to play for a win and not for a draw.
I believe it is possible to beat the bot at 1+1 and even at 1+0 (no strong GM's play based on my knowledge and if some strong GM is going to join then I expect him to get rating of 2900 by getting clearly better results that you get in 1+0 or 1+1)

I tried to beat the bot 10 times in a row at 15+10 with white but failed and got only 9.5-0.5 result in my last 10 games.
I already had a record of 8 wins in a row but only drew in game 9.

Good afternoon Uri. I hope you are well and continue to be well. Thank you very much Uri for your solidarity. The ideal and most perfect thing in the battle of man against machine is to win games on the computer. For this reason, your result of 9.5 to 0.5 against the machine, in addition to being extraordinary, is proof of the imposition of your human intelligence strategy against kinetic tactics. And not many people have that talent. The ideal is to beat the computer, I think that at 1+1 some GMs would achieve it. But I highly doubt that Carlsen and Nakamura will win a match against LeelaQueenOdds today in 1-minute bullet control without increment. Furthermore, I doubt that one or the other will obtain results that are obviously superior to what I can against Leelaqueenodds at one minute. We could ask the LeelaQueenodds team to do that type of tournament, with 300 bulet games each of the three of us.  The Street Fighter, a simple country donkey, and the two chess geniuses. Furthermore, I fear that the bot will continue to gain more power and will crush us all without mercy. In my opinion, which is just that,
The computers can only be tied or beaten, the latter very occasionally, through strategic staggered plays aimed at the location of the entity or substance in their blind spot, precisely what you are doing very well Uri to beat Leela, since You do not achieve such an objective through tactical combinations where "the substance" overwhelms us. I am sad that I cannot continue, what happens is that the wounds I am receiving with the club hurt me. I am not comparing myself to the giants Carles and Nakamura, I only talk and give my opinion about chess and computers. I am nothing.

[Uri Blass]

I guess that there are people who are weaker against leela because they believe that she cannot blunder so do not care to calculate if some sacrifice is leading to a forced mate against leela in position it is obvious there was not a forced mate that humans can calculate.

Of course it is correct for normal AB engines but not for leela and the shortest loss of leela queen odds bot is because leela let a mate that humans could calculate.

https://lichess.org/2gk2PfYa/black

I do not blame leela for playing 9...Rg8 and not 9...Rf8 10.Nf7+ Rxf7 11.Qxf7 that does not give practical chances.