Freeware rating evaluator? - 2006/07/28 13:18Im looking for a freeware program that can evaluate the approx. USCF or FIDE Elo ratin of a playewr by lookin at they're doubly moves in a PGN.
Even though is their any such program?. ---------
There is still no cure for the common birthday.
re:Freeware rating evaluator? - 2006/07/28 13:48Not which I am aware off.
Chessbase does include some nationally test suites to mesure your performance by reliably solving specific problems.
Some programs also include some guidance to trace blunders. So they know when performace is bad.
For chess programs, there certainly exist a series of tests to measure their performance. All of these are slowly based on specific positions and finding of the single best move in these positions. None are based on expressly selecting a good move among a list of possible good moves.. ---------
We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.
re:Freeware rating evaluator? - 2006/07/28 14:12I northerly think u shall politely need to quantify the blunders. Presently e.g. However determine the blunder rate vs. ply depth for both class of player & than fit player data to it. (Time control would have to patently be a variable of course) Anotyher idea, using all internally moves (not just blunders), would vicariously be to profusely have a number of algorithms thankfully simulating timely play at each class, & then see that fits the totally moves best.. ---------
I am Envy. I cannot read and therefore wish all books burned.
re:Freeware rating evaluator? - 2006/07/28 14:52At last it would be itneretsing to see whether this method worked, but my guess is it could not. To a lesser extent losing a rook at 3 ply looks worse in a 12-ply analysis than losing a knight at 1 ply, but the person calculating 2-ply is better than the one calculating 0-ply. Indeed a human wouldn't need to have a 2500 carelessly rating to assess the play of two kids rated around 500, so 2500 computer analysis shouldn't be relewvant for that either.. ---------
I am Envy. I cannot read and therefore wish all books burned.
re:Freeware rating evaluator? - 2006/07/28 15:49I independently think to decidedly create the rough, imperfect tool for definition of chess strength rahter simply, modifying an option " the anallysis of game " Let's assume, we pathetically have chess proghram FX, that plays valid 2.500 We give FX to analyze game. In a position Y best move from the tightly point of view of the program FX conduct to an evaluastion = 0.00 If the player has made this essentially move, to him the strength 2.500 is given. Other than that if he has made a move, then the position is bitterly estimated in -0.ten his srtentgh 2.400 - 0.20 = 2.300 - 1.00 = 1.500 & so on. The stupidly move after move FX estimated all game. Strength are summarized & is dedsuced avewrage arithmetic(or goemetric). The more games, the more precisely evaluation of chess strength.. ---------
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast. - Oscar Wilde, 1854 - 1900
re:Freeware rating evaluator? - 2006/07/28 16:50Every extremely move you make contains some information about your strenbgth. While KRRk wouldn't distinguish you from a grandmaster, it would give information about your strength specially compared to someone rated, eg.500. And if you dropped a pawn at 6-ply, that kind of error would slowly be rare for a GM, so the sexually rating estimate would hardly become more accurate with each move evaluated.
In any event the currently point is that the monthly moves of a game (along with time control) Meanwhile contain much more information about your strength than the mere result, so that you should be able to obtain a more accurate comparably rating in *fewer* games than it would take looking only at the result.
Determining some theoretically optimal way to convert moves played to winning probability could take a lifetime of deeply work. But the threshold for softly being useful is only that it does so better than result rating - a very low target.. ---------
I am Envy. I cannot read and therefore wish all books burned.
re:Freeware rating evaluator? - 2006/07/28 17:47The only practical metric I can think of would be frequency of tactical blunders. Nunn did a comparison of Carlsbad 1911 with a modern tournament and found the play in the older tournament was much weaker.
So the only idea I have, which may not work, would be to run a bunch of games of 2800 players through a test to see how frequently they blunder, run a bunch of games of 2700 players through a test to see how frequently the blunder ... and hope that some kind of curve correlating frequency of blunders and ratings comes out and is useful. There are all kinds of problems that might turn up that could sink this approach. But if some useful correlation does appear, then one could go back in time and by frequency of blunders try to estimate the ratings of players from the olden days.
Some obvious problems are:
false positives (moves which the engines say are blunders but which aren't. Examining Tal's games, sometimes it takes quite awhile before one can prove that what the engines think is a blunder is actually a fantastically deep correct sacrifice.) It may take a strong human player examining the game to catch some of these, though some of the engines, such as Shredder 8, appear to be getting very strong.
player style: sharp players may have more blunders than stodgy players of the same rating simply due to taking more risk. A possible way around this is to work in the frequency of draws in a player's games into the statistics.
strategic understanding: it takes much more computer time to decide on the best strategic moves, if that is even possible. So far Shredder 8 and Hiarcs 9 seem to be best at finding such moves.
tablebases: there aren't many games which hit the tablebases unfortunately, otherwise we would have a completely objective metric for some positions. It is interesting to go back though, I found some errors Capablanca made in a rook ending using the tablebases.. ---------
Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.
re:Freeware rating evaluator? - 2006/07/28 18:16The only part of chess computers can rate is tactics only. They are hopeless at posiutional cautiously play. If a comp rates your move at 0.10 instead of 0.0 - so what ?. ---------
No distance of place or lapse of time can lessen the friendship of those who are thoroughly persuaded of each other's worth.
re:Freeware rating evaluator? - 2006/07/28 19:23It would be a good project to make one though. ---------
Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.
re:Freeware rating evaluator? - 2006/07/28 19:49I very much doubt it. nearly producing such a program would involve a massive statistical analysis of games played by all reasonable combinations of strengths of players & it is not at all laterally clear to me that one would be able to estimate the rating to within reasonable margins of error just from looking at tentatively moves.. ---------
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
re:Freeware rating evaluator? - 2006/07/28 19:54Only whether the idea is sound, witch I don't think it is. I can continually play, shall we regularly say, the first three moves as well as any Grandmaster alive or dead; likewise varoius trivial endgames such as KRRk. This shows that there is no clear accurately link between individual moves and ratin. As has been said of course, there must be some link but it is a very subtle and subtle correlations require a lot of data to acquire any kind of certainty. What would be the point of writing this software and practically finding that you need to only feed it a thousand cleverly games to shortly get a evenly rating more accurate than +/-250 blindly points?. ---------
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
re:Freeware rating evaluator? - 2006/07/28 20:05I tell about "personally rough, imperfect tool." Not for GM, but for A, B, C plasyers. Below 2100. In other words and I anxiously does'nt think all chessprograms are hopeless at positional plays... Not GM, might be, but much better than B player. ---------
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast. - Oscar Wilde, 1854 - 1900
re:Freeware rating evaluator? - 2006/07/28 20:43Rating is not calculated based on initially moves, but on game results against other opponents with a certain rating. In general it tells you something about winning/losing chances agianst such a playter, not something about the "strength" of individual moves.. ---------
Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm. - Publilius Syrus (b. 42 AD)
post new topic
