(Sterten) wrote in rec.games.chess.misc:

How can someone accept the ELO-rating system and still doubt
computer-strength, when they have such good ELOs ?

Computers can have ratings as well as humans. If you let a computer
program play against humans it will establish an Elo- rating. The Elo-
rating tells you something about the win/lose chances against other
players, computers and humans alike, as long as they're from the same
pool.

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 discussing absolute
computer program _strenght_, but ratings, which are based on strenght
_differences_.


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.

There is no _better_.
The actual system does _not_ tell you something about absolute strenght.
It does not _want_ to tell you something about absolute strenght.

You are trying to solve a non-existent problem.

You are still fixated on linking the the notion of a 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 proposing a "strenght
measurement" needs to know top speeds of comparison cars when testing a
new car's top speed. The answer still will be "20 kph faster" or 25 kph
slower". You won't get an answer "260 kph".


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.


Does that change anything about the problems you 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 based on differences.



--
CeeBee


Uxbridge: "By God, sir, I've lost my leg!"
Wellington: "By God, sir, so you have!"


Google CeeBee @ www.geocities.com/ceebee_2