--- In [email protected], "marc_roddis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Perhaps I should make my question more specific. What are the > ratings of the people that are beating quackle half of the time > (for example against speedy player)? > Marc
Good question, Marc. A well-formulated attempt to get a straight answer. But you won't get a straight answer. :-) My finding with Maven was that some players could defeat Maven at far above their expectation according to the rating system. And some were far below. In those days a rating of 1800 was about 300 rating points lower than the peak human rating. Such a player should have ~10% chance (?) of beating Maven at the top level (which was non-simming in those days). Yet I know one 1800 player who was able to win almost 33% of her games. I know of two winners of multiple world or national championships whose tournament ratings were comparable, yet one could beat Maven 49%, and the other was around 35%. BTW, there are several hundred games (over a thousand in some) in each of these samples. Maven would keep a record of every game that you played, so I was sure that the differences were real. It seemed to me that the players who like to keep things wide-open were at a disadvantage. That style probably helps them in their human games, but it is a problem against computers. None of that ever bothered me, though. People wanted to know how strong Maven's levels were, so I gave them a straight answer. I just set the top level to 2100, and calibrated successive levels at 50 rating points lower and lower. Based on self-play. This system does not guarantee comparability to human tournament rating. Possibly the Quackle developers can devise a technique that is comparable. Still, individuals will vary from that baseline depending on their style. Best, Sapphire Brand PS: Odd, when I submit my posts online, Yahoo asks "What language is this post in?" They give me a choice of English, but not TWL or SOWPODS.
