Uri Blass wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 2:26 am
It seems that it is not as easy as I thought.
I played 5 more games when I decided to play differnet first move 1.c4 1.c3 and 1.f4 and lost 4-1 against the bot at 15+10.
I went back to 1.e4 and won 2-1 later
part of my losses were loss on time in a winning position when I tried to calculate the win that was not simple did not like the move that I wanted to play and finally when I decided to play a move it was too late and I lost on time.
one loss was a checkmate when I saw the mating line before the losing mistake but thought maybe I have some defence and decided that I had not time to calculate and did not like to play at time trouble a line that I did not calculate that was better.
I am thinking chess is in a coin.Human beings for ever playing in one face.Now I am playing in the other face:"Antichess". Computers are as a fortres where owner forgot to close a little door behind. You must enter across this door.Forget the front.
Uri Blass wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 2:26 am
It seems that it is not as easy as I thought.
I played 5 more games when I decided to play differnet first move 1.c4 1.c3 and 1.f4 and lost 4-1 against the bot at 15+10.
I went back to 1.e4 and won 2-1 later
part of my losses were loss on time in a winning position when I tried to calculate the win that was not simple did not like the move that I wanted to play and finally when I decided to play a move it was too late and I lost on time.
one loss was a checkmate when I saw the mating line before the losing mistake but thought maybe I have some defence and decided that I had not time to calculate and did not like to play at time trouble a line that I did not calculate that was better.
The thinking of our human brain is mega flexible, it mutates like the butterfly, it flies with the wind, draws can simply become the foundation on which victories will be built.
I am thinking chess is in a coin.Human beings for ever playing in one face.Now I am playing in the other face:"Antichess". Computers are as a fortres where owner forgot to close a little door behind. You must enter across this door.Forget the front.
Marcus91 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 10:40 am
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 am thinking chess is in a coin.Human beings for ever playing in one face.Now I am playing in the other face:"Antichess". Computers are as a fortres where owner forgot to close a little door behind. You must enter across this door.Forget the front.
Marcus91 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 10:40 am
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.
Marcus91 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 10:40 am
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.
Thank you very much Mr. Larry Kaufman for your time and important information. What I am observing is that I had undertaken to follow an exhausting and apparently wrong route on the climb route towards the summit of Mount Enverest, that is, towards the first place in the table of the top 100. I would like to ask you What would I consider my steps to follow should be in order to climb the table towards a better position than my current one of #5. As a "street fighter" I don't care that in the group of the Top 100 whether or not they are representatives of the best Fide humans. Here in the law of anti-machine challenges, the law is different, here there is nothing that is already written, kinetic entities lack feelings and emotions, and in a millisecond they can unleash against us humans, a barrage of stronger and harder blows. That the blows that the world human chess champions could give us... I would appreciate them guiding me in my climb... for my part, I am forever grateful.
I am thinking chess is in a coin.Human beings for ever playing in one face.Now I am playing in the other face:"Antichess". Computers are as a fortres where owner forgot to close a little door behind. You must enter across this door.Forget the front.
Marcus91 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 10:40 am
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.
Thank you very much Mr. Larry Kaufman for your time and important information. What I am observing is that I had undertaken to follow an exhausting and apparently wrong route on the climb route towards the summit of Mount Enverest, that is, towards the first place in the table of the top 100. I would like to ask you What would I consider my steps to follow should be in order to climb the table towards a better position than my current one of #5. As a "street fighter" I don't care that in the group of the Top 100 whether or not they are representatives of the best Fide humans. Here in the law of anti-machine challenges, the law is different, here there is nothing that is already written, kinetic entities lack feelings and emotions, and in a millisecond they can unleash against us humans, a barrage of stronger and harder blows. That the blows that the world human chess champions could give us... I would appreciate them guiding me in my climb... for my part, I am forever grateful.
I think a possible strategy may be to beat Leela at long time control and later to try to repeat the moves at shorter time control.
I searched for games and here are some games when leela lost very fast:
I do not know what is the probability that Leela is going to play exactly the same moves but I found that I could repeat it least the same first 8 moves as one of my previous games(I did not try the strategy of memorizing my wins and repeating moves of games that I won till the end).
Here are 2 games of me that are not exact repeat because in one of them I started 1.d4 and in one of them 1.e4 but with different order of the first 2 moves I got the same first 16 moves when Leela only deviated at move 17.
Sacrificing my queen is objectively not best but I found it relatively easy to win after sacrificing my queen for rook and knight.
8.Bg5 is also not best and 8.Bh6 is stronger.
Marcus91 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 10:40 am
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.
Thank you very much Mr. Larry Kaufman for your time and important information. What I am observing is that I had undertaken to follow an exhausting and apparently wrong route on the climb route towards the summit of Mount Enverest, that is, towards the first place in the table of the top 100. I would like to ask you What would I consider my steps to follow should be in order to climb the table towards a better position than my current one of #5. As a "street fighter" I don't care that in the group of the Top 100 whether or not they are representatives of the best Fide humans. Here in the law of anti-machine challenges, the law is different, here there is nothing that is already written, kinetic entities lack feelings and emotions, and in a millisecond they can unleash against us humans, a barrage of stronger and harder blows. That the blows that the world human chess champions could give us... I would appreciate them guiding me in my climb... for my part, I am forever grateful.
I think a possible strategy may be to beat Leela at long time control and later to try to repeat the moves at shorter time control.
I searched for games and here are some games when leela lost very fast:
I do not know what is the probability that Leela is going to play exactly the same moves but I found that I could repeat it least the same first 8 moves as one of my previous games(I did not try the strategy of memorizing my wins and repeating moves of games that I won till the end).
Uri. Thank you very much for your message and advice. It's true, it would be taking the knowledge from my bullet games to slower time control games. I would believe that this could give favorable results to win, in fact, if you look at my bullet games, you can see that a winning strategy has been developing for me... the problem is that there is very little time to implement the long-term strategic plan…
I am thinking chess is in a coin.Human beings for ever playing in one face.Now I am playing in the other face:"Antichess". Computers are as a fortres where owner forgot to close a little door behind. You must enter across this door.Forget the front.
Marcus91 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 10:40 am
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.
Thank you very much Mr. Larry Kaufman for your time and important information. What I am observing is that I had undertaken to follow an exhausting and apparently wrong route on the climb route towards the summit of Mount Enverest, that is, towards the first place in the table of the top 100. I would like to ask you What would I consider my steps to follow should be in order to climb the table towards a better position than my current one of #5. As a "street fighter" I don't care that in the group of the Top 100 whether or not they are representatives of the best Fide humans. Here in the law of anti-machine challenges, the law is different, here there is nothing that is already written, kinetic entities lack feelings and emotions, and in a millisecond they can unleash against us humans, a barrage of stronger and harder blows. That the blows that the world human chess champions could give us... I would appreciate them guiding me in my climb... for my part, I am forever grateful.
My own strategy is to play at a time control where I am a clear favorite, though not long enough to guarantee a win which would be rather boring. In my case I do better with a large increment rather than base, but in your case probably the opposite is true, since you can play even 1 minute without increment well whereas I cannot do that. You can just keep increasing the time limit until your score reaches 60% or more. In my case I think I can do that at ten seconds per move, with the minimum one minute base, or at 5'5" or 10'0". Maybe at 5'3", probably not at 3'2" or 5'0". I haven't yet played enough games to reach a fair rating, but I expect to at least pass 2400 when I've played enough games based on present rules. I agree with Uri that if you are a queen up it is generally advisable to trade the queen for rook plus minor piece if you have the chance. I only play Black against it myself (playing White is queen and move odds), but you seem to score so much better with White that you may get a higher rating that way despite the lower Elo for Leela playing Black.
Marcus91 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 10:40 am
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.
Thank you very much Mr. Larry Kaufman for your time and important information. What I am observing is that I had undertaken to follow an exhausting and apparently wrong route on the climb route towards the summit of Mount Enverest, that is, towards the first place in the table of the top 100. I would like to ask you What would I consider my steps to follow should be in order to climb the table towards a better position than my current one of #5. As a "street fighter" I don't care that in the group of the Top 100 whether or not they are representatives of the best Fide humans. Here in the law of anti-machine challenges, the law is different, here there is nothing that is already written, kinetic entities lack feelings and emotions, and in a millisecond they can unleash against us humans, a barrage of stronger and harder blows. That the blows that the world human chess champions could give us... I would appreciate them guiding me in my climb... for my part, I am forever grateful.
My own strategy is to play at a time control where I am a clear favorite, though not long enough to guarantee a win which would be rather boring. In my case I do better with a large increment rather than base, but in your case probably the opposite is true, since you can play even 1 minute without increment well whereas I cannot do that. You can just keep increasing the time limit until your score reaches 60% or more. In my case I think I can do that at ten seconds per move, with the minimum one minute base, or at 5'5" or 10'0". Maybe at 5'3", probably not at 3'2" or 5'0". I haven't yet played enough games to reach a fair rating, but I expect to at least pass 2400 when I've played enough games based on present rules. I agree with Uri that if you are a queen up it is generally advisable to trade the queen for rook plus minor piece if you have the chance. I only play Black against it myself (playing White is queen and move odds), but you seem to score so much better with White that you may get a higher rating that way despite the lower Elo for Leela playing Black.
I believe the big difference between white and black is because it is easier to prepare with white.
I guess there is going to be smaller difference between white and black if the queen odd is in FRC or shuffle chess.
