Home 
Search 
Today's Posts 
#1




Freeware rating evaluator?
I'm looking for a freeware program which can evaluate the approx. USCF or FIDE
Elo rating of a player by looking at their moves in a PGN. Is there any such program? 
#2




Freeware rating evaluator?
Sidney wrote:
I'm looking for a freeware program which can evaluate the approx. USCF or FIDE Elo rating of a player by looking at their moves in a PGN. Is there any such program? I very much doubt it. Producing such a program would involve a massive statistical analysis of games played by all reasonable combinations of strengths of players and it's not at all clear to me that one would be able to estimate the rating to within reasonable margins of error just from looking at moves. Dave.  David Richerby Devil Tree (TM): it's like a tree www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ that's possessed by Satan! 
#3




Freeware rating evaluator?
It would be a good project to make one though

#4




Freeware rating evaluator?
Akorps666 wrote:
It would be a good project to make one though Only if the idea is sound, which I don't think it is. I can play, shall we say, the first three moves as well as any Grandmaster alive or dead; likewise various trivial endgames such as KRRk. This shows that there is no clear link between individual moves and rating. 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 finding that you need to feed it a thousand games to get a rating more accurate than +/250 points? Dave.  David Richerby OldFashioned Permanent Shack (TM): www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a house in the woods but it'll be there for ever and it's perfect for your grandparents! 
#5




Freeware rating evaluator?
Sidney wrote:
Is there any such program? Not that I am aware off. Chessbase does include some test suites to mesure your performance by solving specific problems. Some programs also include some guidance to trace blunders. So they know when performace is bad. For chess programs, there exist a series of tests to measure their performance. All of these are based on specific positions and finding of the single best move in these positions. None are based on selecting a good move among a list of possible good moves. 
#6




Freeware rating evaluator?
"David Richerby" wrote in message ... Akorps666 wrote: It would be a good project to make one though Only if the idea is sound, which I don't think it is. I can play, shall we say, the first three moves as well as any Grandmaster alive or dead; likewise various trivial endgames such as KRRk. This shows that there is no clear link between individual moves and rating. Every move you make contains some information about your strength. While KRRk wouldn't distinguish you from a grandmaster, it would give information about your strength compared to someone rated, eg.500. And if you dropped a pawn at 6ply, that kind of error would be rare for a GM, so the rating estimate would become more accurate with each move evaluated. 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 finding that you need to feed it a thousand games to get a rating more accurate than +/250 points? The point is that the moves of a game (along with time control) contain much more information about your strength than the mere result, so that you should be able to obtain a more accurate 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 work. But the threshold for being useful is only that it does so better than result rating  a very low target. DK 
#7




Freeware rating evaluator?
The 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 a 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. 
#8




Freeware rating evaluator?
Hi!
I think to create the rough, imperfect tool for definition of chess strength rather simply, modifying an option " the analysis of game " Let's assume, we have chess program FX, which plays valid 2.500 We give FX to analyze game. In a position Y best move from the point of view of the program FX conduct to an evaluation = 0.00 If the player has made this move, to him the strength 2.500 is given. If he has made a move, then the position is estimated in 0.10 his strength 2.400  0.20 = 2.300  1.00 = 1.500 and so on. The move after move FX estimated all game. Strength are summarized and is deduced average arithmetic(or geometric). The more games, the more precisely evaluation of chess strength.  Regards SoloMoon Sidney пишет в t... I'm looking for a freeware program which can evaluate the approx. USCF or FIDE Elo rating of a player by looking at their moves in a PGN. Is there any such program? 
#9




Freeware rating evaluator?
"Solomon Nuffert" wrote in message ... Hi! I think to create the rough, imperfect tool for definition of chess strength rather simply, modifying an option " the analysis of game " Let's assume, we have chess program FX, which plays valid 2.500 We give FX to analyze game. In a position Y best move from the point of view of the program FX conduct to an evaluation = 0.00 If the player has made this move, to him the strength 2.500 is given. If he has made a move, then the position is estimated in 0.10 his strength 2.400  0.20 = 2.300  1.00 = 1.500 and so on. The move after move FX estimated all game. Strength are summarized and is deduced average arithmetic(or geometric). The more games, the more precisely evaluation of chess strength.  Regards SoloMoon Sidney пишет в t... I'm looking for a freeware program which can evaluate the approx. USCF or FIDE Elo rating of a player by looking at their moves in a PGN. Is there any such program? The only part of chess computers can rate is tactics only. They are hopeless at positional play. If a comp rates your move at 0.10 instead of 0.0  so what ? Regards 
#10




Freeware rating evaluator?
"Akorps666" wrote in message ... The 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. I think you would need to quantify the blunders. E.g. determine the blunder rate vs. ply depth for each class of player and then fit player data to it. (Time control would have to be a variable of course) Another idea, using all moves (not just blunders), would be to have a number of algorithms simulating play at each class, and then see which fits the moves best. DK 
Reply 

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Forum  
Suggestion for Blitzin or similar  hide opponents rating.  rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess)  
USCF Tournament rating fees  rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis)  
Can FIDE really rate players down to 1001 ??  rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess)  
number of players at each FIDE rating level  rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis)  
USCF rating floors...  rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 