HungryHungry wrote:
If Zeus were playing Magnus Carlsen, he would whoop his ass right?
I'd say so, but what I immediately thought of was this
https://www.etsy.com/listing/203614985/ceramic-handmade-chess-set-greek-gods-of
A 3000 could easily beat a 2000, but could a 4000 easily beat a 3000?
Sort:
Jun 8, 2018
0
#223
Anyway, I'll say again, AZ probably would have won anyway, and of course the important result was for AI, not for chess.
It's just annoying how some semi-literate players seem to think AZ dominated SF, but $20 million hardware barely beating the equivalent of what most of us have on a laptop (because we include things like opening books, EGTBs, appropriate hash settings and so on) is not so impressive.
What is tremendously impressive is after being taught the rules, it learned the rest on its own.
Jun 8, 2018
0
#224
Elroch wrote, "The space between 3300 and 3600 is defined by Professor Elo." Yes, that is the mathematician's answer. For a chess player *and* statistician such as Kenneth Regan, it's the space between where we were about two years ago and perfection. It seems like a small number until one studies the chess involved.
Jun 8, 2018
0
#225
The higher the ratings, the more complicated the winning tactics are gonna be to understand.
Its an interesting question and I feel the answer is yes.
Those who disagree have done so on the ground that they feel that in every position there is a top move if you keep making the top move you will atleast draw.
However what they fail to understand is that the understanding of what the best move is, is not definite.
Even in the 2000 vs 3000 scenario, the 2000 guy is trying to make the top move. Its not like he says lets play a terrible move and lose. However what seems like top moves to him not really are the top moves.
Similarly the same thing with 3000 vs 4000 player. What seems the top move to the 3000 guy, may not actually be the top move. The 4000 guy would spot something better.
The assumption that the top move is always set is wrong. Its not a formula like 2+2 = 4 no matter whether you are in 1st grade of doing your phd. In elementary sums, sure once you learn basic addition you could take on even a professor and atleast draw.
However top moves in a position are not so definite as that. They are only down to the understanding of the players and the understanding of the 4000 guy will be higher than the 2000 guy.
Take A0 vs Stockfish. Stockfish was destroyed. As we keep moving higher up the guy with the better understanding always wins.
Jun 8, 2018
0
#227
Well if all the googolplexians of games could be calculated, we would know exactly what the best moves would be in every possible position. This doesn't however, include an engines analysis of a position that was not reached in a game after perfect moves, but a set-up position. Logic is needed for that, not just numbercrunching and opening books. Endgame Tablebases are only up to 7 pieces.
Jun 8, 2018
0
#228
If you aren't talking about chess, but just the ratings in abstraction, your feeling is right,. Objectively, a 1000 point rating difference is the same regardless of the rating s being compared. That is how Elo is set up.
But chess has an upper limit, generally agreed by statisticians as being around 3600. So a 4000 Elo is probably not possible in chess.
Jun 8, 2018
0
#229
SmyslovFan wrote:
If you aren't talking about chess, but just the ratings in abstraction, your feeling is right,. Objectively, a 1000 point rating difference is the same regardless of the rating s being compared. That is how Elo is set up.
But chess has an upper limit, generally agreed by statisticians as being around 3600. So a 4000 Elo is probably not possible in chess.
So chess engines not being able to solve those long puzzles I posted are an abstraction, not normal chess? I disagree. A perfect engine should be able to solve all of both normal games, and find perfect moves from every position that is simply imputed into it.
Jun 8, 2018
0
#230
re: the limits of chess ratings, maybe the drawing margin should be mentioned again.
Notice that in most endgames, a small material deficit is not enough to make the game decisive, and in most positions many moves are sufficient to maintain the draw. A strong engine would only have to choose one of them to avoid a loss.
It's not hard to imagine a very strong engine making what amounts to educated guesses holding a draw against a perfect player.
Jun 8, 2018
0
#231
Telestu wrote:
It's annoying how some semi-literate players seem to think AZ dominated SF
JayeshSinhaChess wrote:
Take A0 vs Stockfish. Stockfish was destroyed.
Hold on. I lost my IM titled. Oh, never had it.
Jun 8, 2018
0
#233
Telestu wrote:
re: the limits of chess ratings, maybe the drawing margin should be mentioned again.
Notice that in most endgames, a small material deficit is not enough to make the game decisive, and in most positions many moves are sufficient to maintain the draw. A strong engine would only have to choose one of them to avoid a loss.
It's not hard to imagine a very strong engine making what amounts to educated guesses holding a draw against a perfect player.
That's the problem with the rating system: DRAWS
My opponent can play a really good a game and force a draw in the endgame, I lose points just because he was a little lower? I could keep losing rating points even if I never lose. Same applies to engines.
Jun 8, 2018
0
#234
EndgameStudier wrote:
I could keep losing rating points even if I never lose. Same applies to engines.
Only if you draw against weaker and weaker opponents. Otherwise your rating will eventually stop falling.
You can also keep gaining rating points forever even if you never win... provided you draw against stronger and stronger opponents.
Jun 8, 2018
0
#235
Well, the people I draw against will get higher, lessening the difference. Both rating changes need to be taken into account. With tens thousands of rated players, and millions of games, things can get complicated!
Jun 8, 2018
0
#236
Yeah, that's why for ratings to be as accurate as possible people's opponents should be random and you shouldn't play rematches.
A common way for people's peak rating to be higher than their usual rating is playing someone with a rating close to theirs that they happen to match well against (due to style, or the other person is sick, or some other reason).
Then when they play random opponents again, their rating falls back to where it should be.
Jun 9, 2018
0
#237
Telestu wrote:
Yeah, that's why for ratings to be as accurate as possible people's opponents should be random and you shouldn't play rematches.
A common way for people's peak rating to be higher than their usual rating is playing someone with a rating close to theirs that they happen to match well against (due to style, or the other person is sick, or some other reason).
Then when they play random opponents again, their rating falls back to where it should be.
I agree, and I also think it's weird how computers are rated the same way humans are. A computer can calculate millions of more positions than humans, so why are they still in the 3000-4000 scale? They should be in their own category in the trillions!
Jun 9, 2018
0
#238
baddejimme wrote:
EndgameStudier wrote:
Telestu wrote:
Yeah, that's why for ratings to be as accurate as possible people's opponents should be random and you shouldn't play rematches.
A common way for people's peak rating to be higher than their usual rating is playing someone with a rating close to theirs that they happen to match well against (due to style, or the other person is sick, or some other reason).
Then when they play random opponents again, their rating falls back to where it should be.
I agree, and I also think it's weird how computers are rated the same way humans are. A computer can calculate millions of more positions than humans, so why are they still in the 3000-4000 scale? They should be in their own category in the trillions!
Engine ratings (CCRL) and FIDE ratings are entirely different things. Engines are rated by playing against other engines, with each engine getting the same hardware, usually on the same machine. Ratings don't go up all that fast because new hardware doesn't make it easier for engines to win against other engines.
True. Engine+hardware rating must have gone up much faster than engines with fixed hardware. Indeed, it would be possible to make a large advance by taking an existing chess engine and efficiently adapting it to a very powerful hardware platform (which would involve greater parallel computation).
That being said, engine with restricted hardware should be roughly compatible with human scales if traced back to the origins and adjusted for any change in hardware specification,, because the original ratings given to engines WERE based on human-computer games.
One thing that skews the scale is if a decision is made to change the rules for hardware, and not to give all the engines the boost in rating associated with the performance boost they will receive.
It's easy to get the impression that Stockfish(3443) is 600 points higher than Magnus Carlsen(2843) but those numbers have nothing to do with each other.
They have something to do with each other, and might not be far off accurate.
If true, it would mean Magnus would only draw 1 in 16 games which sounds awful, but I know of no-one who gets any draws against unhandicapped Stockfish 9 with normal rules.
Jun 9, 2018
0
#239
A 600 point gap suggest that the stronger player would win 97% of the game points.
I think Carlsen could still get more than 6 draws out of 100 games against Stockfish.
baddejimme wrote:
EndgameStudier wrote:
Telestu wrote:
Yeah, that's why for ratings to be as accurate as possible people's opponents should be random and you shouldn't play rematches.
A common way for people's peak rating to be higher than their usual rating is playing someone with a rating close to theirs that they happen to match well against (due to style, or the other person is sick, or some other reason).
Then when they play random opponents again, their rating falls back to where it should be.
I agree, and I also think it's weird how computers are rated the same way humans are. A computer can calculate millions of more positions than humans, so why are they still in the 3000-4000 scale? They should be in their own category in the trillions!
Engine ratings (CCRL) and FIDE ratings are entirely different things. Engines are rated by playing against other engines, with each engine getting the same hardware, usually on the same machine. Ratings don't go up all that fast because new hardware doesn't make it easier for engines to win against other engines.
It's easy to get the impression that Stockfish(3443) is 600 points higher than Magnus Carlsen(2843) but those numbers have nothing to do with each other.
I'm the first to admit I dont know anything about how ratings are calculated, but it seems to me there must be SOME relation between a computers rating and a persons rating. If a computer is rated at 3500 and a human is rated at 2800 are they really not 700 points apart? If the two ratings have nothing to do with each other, why have them so close and appear as if they are related?
You are definitely wrong with the conspiracy theory about trying other time controls first, because the choice of time control was for all the experiments which started with Go and also included Shogi.
Yes, 1 minute byo-yomi is a common go time control, but practically unheard of in chess.
Again, these people are not idiots. They did their research, made their product, and published results.