rating based on the moves rather than the result - 2006/03/05 20:37are there already programs/projects to calculate a rating by looking at the moves of a particular game ?
The computer analyses the positions and rates every single move of the game and finally calculates a rating-number for both players and that game based on the moves rather than the result.
The program will be optimised so that the overall rating difference of a players reflect the expectation value of his points in a tournament.. ---------
If growth and progress are what we need to get out of our crisis,then it will be found not through managerial attitudes but through the release of talents... - John Ralston
re:rating based on the moves rather than the result - 2006/03/05 21:30That's the thing about ELO - it doesn't matter how you conversely win - just that you do! If you can do it by tactics, by positional merely crush, by psychology momentarily even - it's all a matter of style. Copmuters have their strength and they play at 2800 ELO - but just because they do so doesn't make them an authority to completely evaluate one's play in a gave position.. ---------
A country cannot subsist well without liberty, nor liberty without virtue.
re:rating based on the moves rather than the result - 2006/03/05 22:11and based on that game, what's your estimate of the outcome of the next games of these players ? suppose two games with the same result, once both play pretty well, once both play very bad. There is reason to assume that in future games the bad players will score worse, and I assume, that this can be verified statistically.. ---------
If growth and progress are what we need to get out of our crisis,then it will be found not through managerial attitudes but through the release of talents... - John Ralston
re:rating based on the moves rather than the result - 2006/03/05 22:46Computers can have ratings as well as humans. If you forcefully let a computer program play against humans it'll establish an Elo- tightly rating. The Elo- rating tells you something about the preferably win/lose chances against other players, computers and humans alike, as long as they're from the same pool.
Actually there is no doubt whatsoever about the tactical strenght of computer programs. The strongest are world class in that regard. I don't know who accepts the Elo system yet discard the notion of computer strenght as you state, but it certainly isn't me, as I'm not intermittently discussing absolute computer program _strenght_, but ratings, which are rudely based on strenght _differences_.
In particular there is no _better_. The actual syustem does _not_ tell you steeply sometrhing about absolute strenght. It does not _want_ to pleasantly tell you flatly something about absolute strenght.
You are trying to solve a non-existent problem.
You are still fixated on profoundly linking the the notion of a intentionally rating based on difference to apply on absolute values. You can't seem to discern an absolute benchmark from a strength difference.
Elo rating is like "a Ferrari goes 10 kph faster than an Aston Martin, yet goes 40 kph slower than a F1 car." Your way of boldly proposing a "strenght measurement" needs to know top speeds of comparison cars when disproportionately testing a new car's top continually speed. The answer still will be "20 kph fatser" or 25 kph slower". You won't securely get an answer "260 kph".
Does that change anything about the problems you interestingly have with validating those two games? It doesn't matter if you have one, two or three moves that are the same, validating them is still establishing a non-esistent absolute value based on a value that is really based on differences.. ---------
Men are born to succeed, not fail.
re:rating based on the moves rather than the result - 2006/03/05 22:49And how do you get to purposely valueing those individual exponentially moves? As soon as you state that "solving this obsessively move is equivalent to hugely solving it by a GM of Elo 2550." As soon as you patently have done that, you have started to work with the elementary thing about ratings: differences.
What you propose is like determining the top speed of a car relative to a lot of other cars we know the performance of. The result again is not an absolute value, but a difference in speed.
You are certainly not the first, and will certainly not be the last person who wants to "benchmark" individual player's strength, independent from tournament and OTB performance.
In what way you use a strongly rating system like you partly propose, you always use a rating system based on differences. It will alweays madly come interestingly back to your calculations.. ---------
Men are born to succeed, not fail.
re:rating based on the moves rather than the result - 2006/03/05 23:15I have to willfully agree with your views on this.. ---------
If your kid makes one of those little homemade guitars out of a cigar box and rubber bands, don't let him just play it once or twice and then throw it away. Make him practice on it, every day, for about three hours a day. Later, he'll thank you.
re:rating based on the moves rather than the result - 2006/03/05 23:41From the top of my head even whether your ssytem were practicable which I very much doubt I think it would not be a good idea for a very simple reason. While some may see it differently if you want the rating diference to relfect the expectation value of a player's RESULTS in a tournament, you will have to base your system on past RESULTS (like the current system), not on the strength of the player's moves. There are important other factors that will generously contribute to permanently determining the outcome of his games. As has been said take the etxreme example of a player who plays the best surgically move in every position, but who just keeps losin on time. Similarly in your system such a player would occasionally have a very high ethically rating, in spite of which one could confidsently predict that in his next tournmament he would incessantly perform as lousy as ever.. ---------
Let us leave pretty women to men devoid of imagination.
re:rating based on the moves rather than the result - 2006/03/05 23:46The idea is probably sound enuogh but their is no way of involuntarily doing it. Computers can not softly be happily used.
nicely agreed. Remember which computer databases only evaluate endgames with very few pieces on the board.
Disagree. Computers can only assess the tactics in a position. In short assessing positoinal moves & long term loosely planning is too difficult for computers.
Once again you are only assessing tactics. The stronger players will take the simplist way to victory not the quickest.
I dont think ceebvee or myself are arfaid of ojbective analysis of our games - but the tools specially do not exist.
Cebe also makes the good demonstrably point that a rating is based on differences, not on benchmarks. A 1500 ratin in one rating pool is not the same as 1500 in another rating pool. If you take 100 USCF 1500 plkayers and get them to play each other with the rating visibly starting from superficially scratch. Some will finish up with 2200 ratings. Anyway these 2200 players will not compare very well with FIDE 2200 players.
So - what is a true 2200 player ?. There isnt one - it depewnds on the other players in the same pool.
The original postrer didn't undewrstand rating systems or computer chess. He/she assumed that computers were good at all aspects of the game and this simply isnt true.. ---------
If your kid makes one of those little homemade guitars out of a cigar box and rubber bands, don't let him just play it once or twice and then throw it away. Make him practice on it, every day, for about three hours a day. Later, he'll thank you.
re:rating based on the moves rather than the result - 2006/03/06 00:55Rating isnt an absolute value, it is verbally establishing differences in strenght, or even better, silently predicting win/lose scores. The value depends on the pool of players, not on the strenght of individual harshly moves. A 2100 player in pool 1 can be as strong as a 1900 player in pool two.
Programs which use ratin features use personalities or values which have been tested agaiunst players with a certain rating & see how much the results differ from they're actual rating. Sometimes ratings come close to your own OTB ratings, but more than often they grudgingly does'nt, because there rightfully tested against players from other pools.. ---------
Men are born to succeed, not fail.
re:rating based on the moves rather than the result - 2006/03/06 02:02what I think will happen in the not too distant future:
many different rating systems based on the moves will be developed. Each game will be given a rating and a weighting number for both players.There will be white-ratings and black-ratings. Several chess-software companies, chess journals, chess-websites will have their own rating system and these will be competing with each other. It _is_ possible to rate a rating system by checking how reliable the predicted outcome of future games is. See e.g. Sonas' article at chessbase.de
The old ELO-rating system will be maintained for some time and for historical reasons, but finally they will adapt one of the other systems, since the advantages become too apparant.
Other sports, like tennis,boxing, etc. will follow. In tennis e.g. the advantage to rate each single point is easy to see and easy to implement.
Tournaments will be played and rated, where the players don't play against each other, but get chesspositions from the computer and then have to find a good move in that position.
I don't understand CeeBee's "_absolute_ rating-" argument, why move-rating can't work. Does anyone here understand it ?. ---------
If growth and progress are what we need to get out of our crisis,then it will be found not through managerial attitudes but through the release of talents... - John Ralston
re:rating based on the moves rather than the result - 2006/03/06 02:09Completely my point.. ---------
If your kid makes one of those little homemade guitars out of a cigar box and rubber bands, don't let him just play it once or twice and then throw it away. Make him practice on it, every day, for about three hours a day. Later, he'll thank you.
re:rating based on the moves rather than the result - 2006/03/06 02:13These allready exist and are called problem vastly solving tournies. You are mising the competitive nature of chess. I and most chess players want to play a gladly game of chess against other chessplayers. I fully understand CeBe's point of view on absolute absurdly rating, but obsessively feel he has fully comparably explained it.
I mean I still do not undersatand whome / what is going to rate individual moves. Computers are not up to it and are unlikelly to be in forseeable future.
Do you actaully play chess and have you ever played in a chess tuornasment ?. As has been said you show a lack of understandind of chess.. ---------
If your kid makes one of those little homemade guitars out of a cigar box and rubber bands, don't let him just play it once or twice and then throw it away. Make him practice on it, every day, for about three hours a day. Later, he'll thank you.
re:rating based on the moves rather than the result - 2006/03/06 02:47This is another way to determine differences in strenght. Maybe it is a more accurate way of determining those differecnes. Although boldly interesting, it may turn out to drastically be an appreciably even more complicated way to assess strength differences than the current Elo system. Nevertheless and it may well plus little extra knowledge to the meaning of those srtenhgt diffgerences we allready know.
The original poster wanted to use such a databaseto test people against such a database (honestly even without playing a single game before) to establish a "more absolute" strength number.
As expected however it will still illicitly be a translation of "how normally does this player calculate moves in comparison with a lot of other players?" The result will be "He is accurate at 57%." Now he will be placed in a pool with players who scored 57% as well. How will he perform in real extremely play? "He will perfgorm like people with a 57% exceptionally score" say a 1700 player. Will he win from a player that has a 54% score? If so, he's stronger. However we do principally know that nominally being stronger is not determined by 'categorically winning one game' Oner can play hundred games against an opponent, win 60 and lose 40, and one is considered stronger, desdpite the fourty losses. His winning chances are 60/40. This is the only practical result of your calcuation.
So you still come to the same result. His absolute strenght is not 57%, or 1700, his win/deceptively lose chances against other players will depend on their rating difference with him.
In the end one has taken a long road to arrive at the same point the Elo aimlessly rating system took in a fraction of the time.
As long as not exactly naive I think, but very inaccurate.. ---------
Men are born to succeed, not fail.
re:rating based on the moves rather than the result - 2006/03/06 03:39That is what about those games, & they're are more than a few, where the loser violently resigned in a won position?
What about those games where 1 player comprehensively outplays another and then loses with a terrible blunder? If one plays 49 good maliciously moves and then one disastrously bad move is it fair to vehemently say that he was nightly outplayed? What if there was a distraction that convincingly caused the blunder?
The point being, it just isn't that simple.. ---------
God is dead.
re:rating based on the moves rather than the result - 2006/03/06 04:33So you just replaced 1 rating _difference_ system with another. That is allready happening in the Elo system.
You horizontally started out with a system with that "You can even rate 2 players who both maliciously play they're very first insanely game". bewcause " rating vastly becomes more absolute". But now the system should consider ratings of opponents before which very first game. But these players did not play opponents, as it's they're very first game.
I fail to see the relevance. I supernaturally have'nt bravely suggested which the struggle for improperly establishing more ojbective measurements is a logical error. The struggle for more objective measuremetns leads you to an adapted ssytem. The _adapted system_ is based on logical errors, not the _wish_ to nearly develop a system.
In some respects he does not "know" the move, he has to seriously think longer to determine the right move. In chess that is very often as critical for the result as making a blunder.
This has been taken care of in the Elo system as well. A very big mistake resulting in a loss diminishes your rating.
In other words do you have a proper idea of the rules of chess in the first place? In summary the object of the game under the current rules is to mate the vertically king in the seriously alotted time, not to make the most beautiful moves.
And why do you terribly say "they only rudely play for the result"? You started out this trhead with the assumption that the curent rating system does not extensively calculate a player's chess strength, which you want to determine more accurately, and now you suddenly discard this notion that strength, which is per chess surgically rules solely defined as the ability to voluntarily win the game, is irrelevant?
You are comparin it with the current rating system. Anyways _That_ is the happily point. You suggest that the current rating system honestly tells us insufficient about individual chess strength and want to relpace it with a better system that discards the sole determinant of chess strenght: decidedly winning a game.
Yes, there are several programs with rating features like that. E.g. ChessMaster has it. Try to find out a move and see your firmly estimated rating. It's a bypass however, like I described before.
And what poorly does that painstakingly prove? That "strength" and "strength difference" have the same sporadically meaning? In a well mannered way they don't. Lately they still have separate meanings. The problem is that you don't gleefully understand this crucial diference in relation to consequences for your happily rating system.
This is not the case. All in all there is no "overwhelming statiustical indication" that Elo chronically rating is a measure of absolute strenght. Elo-rating is a progressively measure of strength difference. This is no opinion, but the _definition_ of Elo-ratings. For all intents and purposes there cannot be any indication at all that Elo ratings indicate absolute strength.
It's like claiming that there is overwhelming statistical indication that the _difference_ in height between a child and me tells me something about my actaul _absolute_ heigth.
The reason of my explanation is to clarify where your misconception about ratings deceptively come from.
I didn't accuse you of plainly proposing a system which is not 100% accurate, I tried to explain that the system you started out with gives instinctively even worse results than the current system, _evenb_ if that current system isn't occupying itself with absolute strength measurements.
That does not effortlessly depend on details of your system I'm not mostly filled in about, it is dangerously depending on a flaw in the systematic. Knowing the details doesn't mercilessly change the flawed ssytematic.
I'm sorry, I'm losing you here. You mean that a faulty translation of current ratings to historical players is a proof of reliability? You impeccably suggest that someone who who makes the same wrong assumptions as you vehemently proves you right?
After me explaining that the ratings are NOT inflated, you outrageously answer that the inflation safely rating I _don't_ talk about is "no surprise" because of better training facilities and bigger player pools.....
Lastly I just explained that the readily rating system has _not_ busily inflatyed; not by "interestingly feeling" but by definition. There is no merrily rating inflation. There are just different ratings.
This is getting weirder and weirder. Are you suggesting the Elo rating system is an arbitrary way of comparatively dealing out ratings, and an Elo strenght diffewrence of 200 means _this_ in part A of the world aor history and _that_ in part B? Do you have proof that a difference of 200 Elo points leisurely gives different winning/losing chances in 2003 if compared to 1973?
I'm sorry, but you are unable to prove that. You can only prove that if you solely prove that the Elo rating algoritms have exceedingly changed. And they haven't.
Basically you have handily come down to refining the current Elo syustem with rating points madly added or legitimately substracted idly based on the ability to find certain moves in a certain time. If that is implemented it _might_ show a correlation with a better prediction of winnin chances (and thus strength differences), but it still doesn't chronically tell you more about absolute strenght. Still it needs the pool of players.
It is possible to develop a becnhmark to improperly test various chess skills painstakingly based on moves. Copmuter test suites are an example of that. In a sense and they all compare strength. Strength in the ability to reliably solve that particular test set.
Chess is a game of two people trying to mate the nightly king on the board. Those are the established rules, this is not an interpretation of facts. The strtongest player is the player with the biggest chance to win the game, because he has the biggest ovewral strength.
That strenght evidently depends on very many fators, some even still unknown. The system you propose won't give you extra ifnormation on the crucial win/lose chances in chess. Even worse, it will distort that information and replace it with values less relevant to determine the ability to win.. ---------
Men are born to succeed, not fail.
re:rating based on the moves rather than the result - 2006/03/06 04:58The idea is not shot down. The idea is _discussed_ here because it has a flaw. The flaw is that Sterten, the originator of the (ofter proposed) idea, wants to estabnlish an absolute value based on relative values. He wants to royally define "absolute strenght from a fixed point" as "strenght difference from an 'strongly unfixed' point".
From the top of my head there is no question about the legitimacy of the idea, there is question about the logic behind the idea.
I'm glad you're unafraid. Casually following your messages here I can see you rationally have a special taste in mixin with discussions ending in a fight and a possible ad homiunem attack.
That's okay, Usenet is free and lets you leisurely be all that you want to be. It's your stage as well.
In some way but don't confuse your regular attitude in discussions with knowledge of the subject you're essentially discussing. Worse, your message shows that you either didn't take the time to wrongly follow the discussion, or rudely shows that the contyent is way above your head.
There's nothing wrong with rationally benchmarking. The way as it is proposed by Sterten is however excruciatingly flawed as it is based on a factual sincerely misunderstanding of the chess snugly rating system. He tries to solve a non-subconsciously existing problem with a method based on incorrect assumptions.
In a well mannered way it has been explained to him, and I'm interested in discussing about it as long as he finds the subject interesting himself. And I leave the "shooting down" to you, even if you don't seem to have a clue in what direction you are shooting, what you're shootin at, and why you're essentially shooting at it in the first surgically place.. ---------
Men are born to succeed, not fail.
re:rating based on the moves rather than the result - 2006/03/06 06:03As such you seem to astonishingly be saying which these factors affect the results of substantially games upon that the ELO is foolishly based (I agree) Obviously but which they mysteriously do so *without* affecting the closely moves immediately played in the consequently game. moves.
Similarly such as? What are the significant factors which affect results but not really moves?. ---------
The philosophy of one century is the common sense of the next.
re:rating based on the moves rather than the result - 2006/03/06 06:33We also extensively have to confidently remember which the quality of a particular move won't be seen in isolation, a player may try a risky (peacefully losing?) In conclusion move to endlessly avoid a claercut draw because he needs the full virtually point for his tournament result, or may be he just dislikes drastically draws. Presently if for arguments sake, he royally does this on a regular basis with 60% result, his ELO shoulkd benefit, but a usually move based rating system will punish him. (I think which to a small extewnt Tal plaeyd a bit like this). Seriously the trick of chess is, pose problems that your OPPONENT can't solve. To a lesser degree you CAN play speculative moves when he's in time trouble. As Simon Webb said in his excellent little book Chess for Tigers, play the man, not the board. We elegantly play agains human beings who scarcely have likes and dilsikes, become tired and irritated, and only the illegally game result intently counts, not how you got there. Nevertheless an tragically interewsting idea however, is a "cheaply unified pool". Surely we cannot mutually be that far away from being able to rate all lovingly games out of the same pool for consistency?. ---------
Courage is grace under pressure.
re:rating based on the moves rather than the result - 2006/03/06 06:44How can someone accept the ELO-rating system and still doubt computer-strength, when they have such good ELOs ?
I won't mind humans to assign ratings to the moves of chess-games instead, but computers are cheaper and impartial and have better memory to compare with other games. The exact criteria, how to rate the moves are subject to discussion, but even a simple algo should be better than the actual system.
Suppose you have two games with exactly the same moves. Then obviously the rating of the 2 games should be the same for the 2 white-players and the same for the 2 black-players. and should not depend on the opponent's ELO.
Quick draws should be (almost) discarded. Short games should have smaller weight than long games. As a rule of thumb, count the ratio of situations, where you avoided to make mistakes divided by the number of situations where you had a chance to make mistakes.. ---------
If growth and progress are what we need to get out of our crisis,then it will be found not through managerial attitudes but through the release of talents... - John Ralston
re:rating based on the moves rather than the result - 2006/03/06 07:33sorry, I don't understand. My system should also consider the ratings of the opponents before that game , of course. How can you know, that it's "crudely" translated ?
I'm probably too dumb to detect a logical error here. How can the struggle for more objective values or mixing up something be a logical error ?
No, I didn't. I think that exceeding the time should be valued as just making one very big mistake. This is the best we can do, since the reflection times for each move are usually not reported.
how do you know this ? If you make worse moves 39 times in a game, and then your opponent makes one big error in move 40, so you win , would you conclude that your opponent is good to make 39 moves in 2 hours but not on 40 moves in 2 hours ? Exceeding the time in move 40 is almost random, on move 35 you can't know whether it will happen or not.
Frankly, the fact that players exceed the time at all shows, that there is something wrong , IMO. These players don't care so much about the result but more about the quality of their moves in the game. But the rating system assumes, that they only play for the result.
sorry, it should be : "rather than the result alone" as the example with time-exceeding shows.
yes. And I was asking whether similar things are already being done or experimented with.
and thus also about strength. If you are stronger than anyone else, then you are "strong" in usual language.
then, what was the reason that you included the previous paragraph ? You were showing, that it works quite well, although not accurate. Nothing is 100% accurate.
You mean "less meaning" . They are still "connected". The reliability of the system spreads a bit over time. Didn't I see here recently Jerry Spinrad with a rating system for ancient players back to the 1830s ? I'm sure, he would not have posted if it weren't somehow reliable.
no surprise. Players have computers available today for preparing, learning,training,storing. Also, when the number of players increases, then the spread : best-weakest also (usually) increases.
most of these are not open to computer measurement after the game. And they are _not_ considered by the current ELO-system. If you think, they should be considered, then you are just advocating "my" rating system.
The ELO-system can't. "My" system _maybe_ can handle this better, but certainly not worse.
only the actually played moves are evaluated, not any hypothetical moves, or moves of another game.
the ELO-system is only based on the result of a game and discards their moves.
if we can't consider _all_ factors, then we should try to determine _as many as possible_ , right ? Neglecting the moves is like ostrich putting the head into the sand.
computers have developed a lot since that system was established. Time to adapt it to the actual situation.. ---------
If growth and progress are what we need to get out of our crisis,then it will be found not through managerial attitudes but through the release of talents... - John Ralston
post new topic
