Komodo Dragon 2.6.1 released

[Odd Gunnar Malin]

I found one table in Elo's book:

[Uri Blass]

I can search for players in USA for example

Alabama
https://www.uschess.org/datapage/player ... &mode=Find

106 players with rating 100
73 players with rating 101
9 players with rating 102
44 players with rating 103
8 players with rating 104
63 players with rating 105
19 players with rating 106
29 players with rating 107
13 players with rating 108
9 players with rating 109
7423 players(I guess most are not active) when most of them under 800 uscf rating
total 373 100-109
total 366 110-199
total 392 200-299
total 444 300-399
total 478 400-499
total 538 500-599
total 567 600-699
total 629 700-799
total 599 800-899
total 579 900-999
total 530 1000-1099
total 444 1100-1199
total 369 1200-1299
total 291 1300-1399
total 418 1400-1599
total 219 1600-1799
total 114 1800-1999
total 73 at least 2000

[Chessqueen]

Ok 2.6.1 introduced a UCI_Elo bug for some GUI's which ignore UCI_Elo when it's set to 0 which is the default setting?!

Please fix it.

Maybe I don't understand the problem. If setting elo to 0 really just sets it to default 3500 (which is full strength), it just means that the range of elos that work is 1 to 3500, with 0 meaning "off". That seems perfectly fine if that's the case, just set elo to 1 for minimum strength, which would only be appropriate if you are having it play a six year old kid who just learned the moves of the pieces (roughly speaking). If I misunderstand the problem, please explain.

But if Komodo is trying to emulate FIDE rated players, it should start with a minimum of 1000, since the lowest FIDE rating that can be achieved is 1000, because of the rating floor in FIDE's rating system, 1000 is the lowest attainable rating. A handful of players have this rating, most of them kids and the Maximum 2950 which I doubt that Carlsen ever will achieve in his lifetime

Yes, FIDE 1000 is the minimum, but it is not supposed to mean beginner level. Chess.com ratings are in general reasonably close to FIDE ratings (below GM level anyway), give or take a couple hundred elo, but the AVERAGE rating there is something like 1200, with the minimum close to zero. My guess is that the average adult who admits to knowing how to play chess would not be able to earn a FIDE rating of 1000 given the appropriate opportunity. So just consider 1000 and above as intended to match FIDE, and ratings below that more or less comparable to chess.com or perhaps USCF scholastic ratings. At the high end, remember these are Rapid ratings, so assuming that 2850 is correct for Rapid, Carlsen would need to set the Elo to something like 3000 for an even challenge at Classical chess, and if he wants to play a somewhat stronger opponent at classical against whom he would still have good drawing chances when playing White, a setting of 3200 might be appropriate. Or to simulate how Carlsen would play at one move per day correspondence chess, maybe 3400 or so is about right. So there are valid reasons for the entire range of Elo settings, although for most of our customers 1000 to 2700 would be sufficient.

If the majority of your customers are rated between 1000 to 2700, then it should be the target or even from 800 to 2700.

Note: From Iceland you should be able to find the ideal Komodo Dragon 2.6.x Next Knight Odds opponent, since the range of Fide rated players makes them ideal. Probably some of the best 8 players from Iceland https://ratings.fide.com/rankings.phtml?country=ISL

The target range is 1000 to 2700, that's the range at which I hope we have parity with FIDE. But there is no disadvantage to offering the range 1 to 3500 for novice players or those who want to simulate Carlsen at various time controls, just don't take the Elo too seriously outside that range. As for players for future Knight odds matches, the main criteria aside from appropriate elo and GM title are 1. Experience with streaming while playing on chess.com, which guarantees something people can watch with minimum likelihood of technical problems, and also pretty much rules out cheating, since a streamer would not want to be called a cheater 2. Good personality, meaning someone people like and who will not make unreasonable excuses for a bad result or misrepresent a good result. I think this applies to most if not all of our opponents in recent years. Nationality doesn't matter as long as they are fluent in English (well actually our first knight odds GM match was in French, so even that isn't an absolute).

A player that often play in Chess.com is Natalia Zhukova, she would be a great player to challenge Komodo Dragon 2.6.x at Knight Odds, she is 42 years old and active player on chess.com. Probably Komodo Dragon 2.6.x cab win 4 out of 6 games against her https://www.chess.com/member/tashik

Here are some of her games https://www.chess.com/game/live/3619196 ... ame=tashik
https://www.chess.com/game/live/3592909 ... ame=tashik

[Odd Gunnar Malin]

I can search for players in USA for example

Alabama
https://www.uschess.org/datapage/player ... &mode=Find

106 players with rating 100
73 players with rating 101
9 players with rating 102
44 players with rating 103
8 players with rating 104
63 players with rating 105
19 players with rating 106
29 players with rating 107
13 players with rating 108
9 players with rating 109
7423 players(I guess most are not active) when most of them under 800 uscf rating
total 373 100-109
total 366 110-199
total 392 200-299
total 444 300-399
total 478 400-499
total 538 500-599
total 567 600-699
total 629 700-799
total 599 800-899
total 579 900-999
total 530 1000-1099
total 444 1100-1199
total 369 1200-1299
total 291 1300-1399
total 418 1400-1599
total 219 1600-1799
total 114 1800-1999
total 73 at least 2000

A strange list with an average around 800-900. I did your search without the state and the trend are the same. Is it possible that higher rated players in US only exist in Fide list. All other list (*with low floor) I have looked at the average have been around 1400, also for US. I followd the Norwegian list from 1989-2012 and the average was pretty constant at 1420 +/- 20. By the way the US list in the picture above are proficiency (skill).

*edit

[Chessqueen]

I can search for players in USA for example

Alabama
https://www.uschess.org/datapage/player ... &mode=Find

106 players with rating 100
73 players with rating 101
9 players with rating 102
44 players with rating 103
8 players with rating 104
63 players with rating 105
19 players with rating 106
29 players with rating 107
13 players with rating 108
9 players with rating 109
7423 players(I guess most are not active) when most of them under 800 uscf rating
total 373 100-109
total 366 110-199
total 392 200-299
total 444 300-399
total 478 400-499
total 538 500-599
total 567 600-699
total 629 700-799
total 599 800-899
total 579 900-999
total 530 1000-1099
total 444 1100-1199
total 369 1200-1299
total 291 1300-1399
total 418 1400-1599
total 219 1600-1799
total 114 1800-1999
total 73 at least 2000

A strange list with an average around 800-900. I did your search without the state and the trend are the same. Is it possible that higher rated players in US only exist in Fide list. All other list I have looked at the average have been around 1400, also for US. I followd the Norwegian list from 1989-2012 and the average was pretty constant at 1420 +/- 20. By the way the US list in the picture above are proficiency (skill).

I believe that Komodo Dragon 2.6.x should start with a Minimum Limit Playing Strength UCI_Elo of 800 and a Maximum of 3000 in case Carlsen and Firouzja want to play against it.

[Uri Blass]

I can search for players in USA for example

Alabama
https://www.uschess.org/datapage/player ... &mode=Find

106 players with rating 100
73 players with rating 101
9 players with rating 102
44 players with rating 103
8 players with rating 104
63 players with rating 105
19 players with rating 106
29 players with rating 107
13 players with rating 108
9 players with rating 109
7423 players(I guess most are not active) when most of them under 800 uscf rating
total 373 100-109
total 366 110-199
total 392 200-299
total 444 300-399
total 478 400-499
total 538 500-599
total 567 600-699
total 629 700-799
total 599 800-899
total 579 900-999
total 530 1000-1099
total 444 1100-1199
total 369 1200-1299
total 291 1300-1399
total 418 1400-1599
total 219 1600-1799
total 114 1800-1999
total 73 at least 2000

A strange list with an average around 800-900. I did your search without the state and the trend are the same. Is it possible that higher rated players in US only exist in Fide list. All other list (*with low floor) I have looked at the average have been around 1400, also for US. I followd the Norwegian list from 1989-2012 and the average was pretty constant at 1420 +/- 20. By the way the US list in the picture above are proficiency (skill).

*edit

Usually tournaments for weak players do not go for fide rating
This is also the situation in israel.

There are 1914 active israeli rated players in the fide rating list but clearly more than it with local rating and there are many chess players who even do not compete for local rating but only in tournament for no rating because beginners usually do not go for tournament for local rating in israel and in some places only for tournaments that are not rated.

[Cornfed]

I believe that Komodo Dragon 2.6.x should start with a Minimum Limit Playing Strength UCI_Elo of 800 and a Maximum of 3000 in case Carlsen and Firouzja want to play against it.

Seriously, they have better things to do with their time. Now, if you have a large check book...

[purechess]

Maybe I don't understand the problem. If setting elo to 0 really just sets it to default 3500 (which is full strength), it just means that the range of elos that work is 1 to 3500, with 0 meaning "off". That seems perfectly fine if that's the case, just set elo to 1 for minimum strength, which would only be appropriate if you are having it play a six year old kid who just learned the moves of the pieces (roughly speaking). If I misunderstand the problem, please explain.

Hiarcs HCE for example disregard the hole UCI_Elo when min start at 0. Means the GUI ignores UCI_Elo and UCI_LimitStrength as an option .
Sure I can use a Polyglot adapter and set it this way. But....

[lkaufman]

Maybe I don't understand the problem. If setting elo to 0 really just sets it to default 3500 (which is full strength), it just means that the range of elos that work is 1 to 3500, with 0 meaning "off". That seems perfectly fine if that's the case, just set elo to 1 for minimum strength, which would only be appropriate if you are having it play a six year old kid who just learned the moves of the pieces (roughly speaking). If I misunderstand the problem, please explain.

Hiarcs HCE for example disregard the hole UCI_Elo when min start at 0. Means the GUI ignores UCI_Elo and UCI_LimitStrength as an option .
Sure I can use a Polyglot adapter and set it this way. But....

Are you saying that we just need to change the allowed range for elo from 0 to 3500 to be 1 to 3500 to fix the problem? That's easy if that will fix it.

[Chessqueen]

Maybe I don't understand the problem. If setting elo to 0 really just sets it to default 3500 (which is full strength), it just means that the range of elos that work is 1 to 3500, with 0 meaning "off". That seems perfectly fine if that's the case, just set elo to 1 for minimum strength, which would only be appropriate if you are having it play a six year old kid who just learned the moves of the pieces (roughly speaking). If I misunderstand the problem, please explain.

Hiarcs HCE for example disregard the hole UCI_Elo when min start at 0. Means the GUI ignores UCI_Elo and UCI_LimitStrength as an option .
Sure I can use a Polyglot adapter and set it this way. But....

Are you saying that we just need to change the allowed range for elo from 0 to 3500 to be 1 to 3500 to fix the problem? That's easy if that will fix it.

So the only thing that we have to do is avoid selecting 0, well let me see if I train my cousin's Monkey and probably he could beat any UCI_ Elo from 1 through 10