When plugged into an interface, you can either play directly against the engine or submit vary widely in quality and playing style. These engines are programmed to find the best possible moves in any position given to them and determine who is ahead by means of algorithms. Most regular tournament players usually have some sort of chess engine installed on their computer. Some programs are dedicated to certain areas of the game (such as endgame or opening study, or tactical exercises), while others allow you to input your games into a database and have the computer analyse them for errors and suggestions. If you're interested in chess and wish to improve, you might want to consider installing a chess program onto your computer to help train you. You can help to develop the work, or you can ask for assistance in the project room. Or let's say that you have 950 rating points and decide to train a bit so you want to play against stockfish for a while so naturally you probably don't pick Stockfish with 3000 rating points but pick the next reasonable best level which in this case Stockfish 1 is 800 so that's too easy so you pick Stockfish 2 which has 1100 only to then discover that this is way easier than playing against other 950 rated humans => surprise.This page or section is an undeveloped draft or outline. Then you start playing humans and discover that you struggle to get more than 950 rating points => surprise. Thus your conclusion would be "I'm as good as a 1100 rated player on _this_ site". Also, let's say you make an account on lichess then play stockfish level 2 in let's say 3+2 games and you win like 9/10 games. If you're a 900 rated player and play Stockfish Level 2 and you win and win and win then that's surprising because that shouldn't happen if it had 1100 rating => surprise. That's a basic design principle: Principle of Least Surprise. If a user on lichess plays Stockfish Level 2 which is displayed as having 1100 rating then surely an average lichess user would expect that Stockfish Level 2 plays at the level of a 1100 rated player on lichess. It's not that difficult I don't get what the problem here is. If 10 900 rating players can beat Lvl2 in at least 7/10 matches each then it's already very unlikely that lvl2 actually plays at 1100. Either lichess guys will run some analysis through their database or somebody else does it (since it is public) and publishes some more data or we just have a bunch of people playing lvl2, lvl3 and publish the result here. Of course this is just one data point and me saying subjectively stockfish level 3 makes mistakes not even a 1100 player would make isn't scientifically convincing but it's not like it's uncommon for way lower rated people beating stockfish (at least based on rough search results) (of course, they could've cheated who knows) but I think there's enough doubt/reason to investigate this and adjust the rating so it's actually accurate. I win about 2/3 of the games (~10min) against Stockfish Level 3 which has been given a 1400 rating yet my rapid rating isn't close to that and the conclusion thus would be that Stockfish 3 doesn't have 1400 rating. If 900 players on lichess can consistently beat Stockfish Level 2 then the 1100 rating it's given doesn't accurately reflect the strength of level 2. We're not discussing rating point systems but whether the rating given to Stockfish levels are a rough reflection of the playing strength accross different time controls. However, that is again completely not relevant for the point. If you were to create a plattform for elite players only and have them start at an initial rating of 800 none of them would reach >2500 ratings points because since they're fairly equal in skills they'll probably stay in the 600-1200 range. Meaning Stockfish Lvl 2 is about 200 rating points too high.Īnyway technically you can't compare ELO ratings or other ratings between different plattforms anyways because it's not an absolute measure of skill but a relative measure of skill because the rating is only valid within the rating pool. Doesn't really matter if it's ELO, Glicko, Glicko2 or some other rating system because you're comparing players within the rating pool and within that rating pool Stockfish Lvl2 plays around 900 rating points - not 1100 rating points. The point is that Stockfish Lvl 2 does not play at 1100 rating points.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |