Holy cow - have you seen the latest ELO-values for chess engines?

Skybird · 09-30-08, 04:48 AM

http://ssdf.bosjo.net/list.htm

Beyond 3200 ELO - that is something. Note that the SSDF already uses the international ELO-calculation that differs form that used in the American chess association (which constantly raises ELOs, especially with computer, by around 200 points). In USCF-ELO, the top list entry maybe would read around 3400-3450 ELO.

for comparison: the strongest human ELO value ever scored was Gary Kasparov with 2851 (the majority of the chess world sees him as the strongest player ever in the history of chess). Beginners rate at around 1000-1300 ELO, regular players at around 1500-1800 ELO, club and tournament players (non-professional up to 2200-2300) - beyond that the official master-ranks begin.

However, the SSDF list may be the most popular and oldest of them all, but even this loist has seen repeated down-corrections in it's history, so the spectacular values should not blind anybody - that they are gong constantly upwards has it'S reason in mathematical implications of the method, and does not necessarily reflect total playing strength comparable to that of the the human's ELO-list. I assume that if you substract 400-600 points, maybe even more (who knows) you probably are closer to the truth. but a chess engine producing a strength of let's say 2750 ELO still would be a total beast to play for any grandmaster in the world. The list of players having an ELO beyond 2700, is short.

Hal, play "Misty" for me...

baggygreen · 09-30-08, 05:39 AM

erm... sky?

whats an ELO?

kranz · 09-30-08, 07:02 AM

Sky-about machines-do you remember the one which Napoleon played with?

Skybird · 09-30-08, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kranz

Sky-about machines-do you remember the one which Napoleon played with?

Yes, why? It was a mechanism operated from inside by a midget. It's called "The Turk". Napoleon lost - different to what people say, by reports from his time he was a lousy chess player.

kranz · 09-30-08, 07:14 AM

yeah, a midget inside. Actually the designer claimed that he "taught" the machine how to make moves etc but the fire revealed the truth. I also remember kasparov's games with deep blue. After he lost he said that computer could not have made such a move...

Skybird · 09-30-08, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kranz

yeah, a midget inside. Actually the designer claimed that he "taught" the machine how to make moves etc but the fire revealed the truth. I also remember kasparov's games with deep blue. After he lost he said that computer could not have made such a move...

Deep Blue is history. Every decent chessprogram today like Rybka, Hiarcs, Shredder, Fritz, plays much stronger, and with far more positional understanding and strategic - instead of just tactical - competence. To have programmed engines so that they can already adapt to coming situations whose complete move variations are beyond their calculation horizon is probably the greatest acchievement of chess programming. IMO it showed to be more decisive than just scaling up the hardware potency. The two names who bet their money on this kind of programming before anyone else were Mark Uniacke from Britain (Hiarcs), and Netherland's Ed Schroeder (the Rebel programs and their many clones). Schroeder has withdrawn form business, but uniacke is still there, and hiarcs is my preferred engine. I can't differ it from a human player. But probabaly is true for all top engines today.

Until the early-90s I was able to beat everything computer-related that you could buy on the public market, wether it be board-computer or PC-amiga-atari-related, if only I took my time and analysed in mail-chess fashion. These times are long over.

+

As far as players of my level are concerned, computers have become the masters. You can safely buy which you like best by the looks, the playing strength of the engine must not worry you and is no argument in the buying decision anymore - chances are it will slaughter you anyway if you do not use minimal calculation times, handicap levels and artificial brakes. Or you play over hours and days, and anaylse as intensive as in correspondence chess.

Skybird · 09-30-08, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baggygreen

erm... sky?

whats an ELO?

Precisely: a man. Practically: a measure unit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

09-30-08, 04:48 AM	#1
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,680 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Holy cow - have you seen the latest ELO-values for chess engines? http://ssdf.bosjo.net/list.htm Beyond 3200 ELO - that is something. Note that the SSDF already uses the international ELO-calculation that differs form that used in the American chess association (which constantly raises ELOs, especially with computer, by around 200 points). In USCF-ELO, the top list entry maybe would read around 3400-3450 ELO. for comparison: the strongest human ELO value ever scored was Gary Kasparov with 2851 (the majority of the chess world sees him as the strongest player ever in the history of chess). Beginners rate at around 1000-1300 ELO, regular players at around 1500-1800 ELO, club and tournament players (non-professional up to 2200-2300) - beyond that the official master-ranks begin. However, the SSDF list may be the most popular and oldest of them all, but even this loist has seen repeated down-corrections in it's history, so the spectacular values should not blind anybody - that they are gong constantly upwards has it'S reason in mathematical implications of the method, and does not necessarily reflect total playing strength comparable to that of the the human's ELO-list. I assume that if you substract 400-600 points, maybe even more (who knows) you probably are closer to the truth. but a chess engine producing a strength of let's say 2750 ELO still would be a total beast to play for any grandmaster in the world. The list of players having an ELO beyond 2700, is short. Hal, play "Misty" for me... __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

09-30-08, 05:39 AM	#2
baggygreen Sea Lord Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Canberra, ACT, Down Under (really On Top) Posts: 1,880 Downloads: 7 Uploads: 0	erm... sky? whats an ELO?

09-30-08, 07:02 AM	#3
kranz The Old Man Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Poland Posts: 1,430 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	Sky-about machines-do you remember the one which Napoleon played with?

09-30-08, 07:14 AM	#5
kranz The Old Man Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Poland Posts: 1,430 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	yeah, a midget inside. Actually the designer claimed that he "taught" the machine how to make moves etc but the fire revealed the truth. I also remember kasparov's games with deep blue. After he lost he said that computer could not have made such a move...