thanks for pointing this out again. if you think about it, it simply *cannot* be accurate.
imagine 12 guys in a room who are all better than everyone else at a boardgame. so they get more ELO than everyone else. imagine also that they are strictly ordered so that #1 loses to #2 very, very, very infrequently, and so on. then #1 will have a crazy high ELO compared with #12, but it says nothing about the percentage of the time that he would beat #13, since #13 (presumably) almost never plays against #1 in tournament settings. (since #1 is actually a computer and because humans wouldn't enjoy being in money tournaments where the best that they can hope for is 13th place). if computers got their ELO points only from ranking organizations by playing in tournaments against people as well as each other, it might be a different story. but (again, presumably) that will never happen. don, please correct me if i've misstated this. s. On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Don Dailey <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Jacques Basaldúa <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Don Dailey wrote: >> >>> To the best I can estimate it is something like 300 ELO >>> now which means in a short match there is almost no chance >> >> > for the human. >> >> It is more than that, around 500. Only a match with a handheld >> device could be seen as similar strength: > > I'm being ultra conservative when I say 300 and I consider it an absolute > lower bound. The reason one must be careful is that there is some slop in > equating computers to humans. Computers have their own ratings lists > which attempt to be in line with human ratings but it is widely believed > that the top programs have some distortion - in other words they are a bit > over rated compared to humans. Programs that are a few hundred ELO weaker > are not over-rated but the top ones are. Computer vs Computer can > produce these distortions. > So 300 is the lowest figure I would be willing to stake my life on - but I > believe it's probably more like 400 or maybe even your 500 value. Larry > Kaufman has produced a formula that he thinks will give more accurate ELO > ratings to the top machines, it basically compresses the ratings of program > with more than a certain ELO and I forget how it works. I don't think it > removes more than 100 ELO so maybe 400 is pretty close to the right value - > but in either case I think it's absolutely clear than computers are > superior and it's not even close. > Don > > > > >> >> Top humans are near 2800 (ratings.fide.com) >> >> Rank Name Title Country Rating Games B-Year >> 1 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2826 0 1990 >> 2 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2803 0 1975 >> 3 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2800 0 >> >> Google for Rybka elo: >> >> On a phone: >> >> Pocket Rybka 3: 2869 ELO on PocketPC? 23 Aug 2008 >> >> 17.01.2009 Deep Rybka 3 x64 2GB Q6600 2.4 3227 >> >> I read somewhere (ICGA Journal I think) that it is over >> 3300 now. >> >> So about 500 points over the top human. >> >> >> Jacques. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Computer-go mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > > > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
