Can 1 elo program beat 1000000000 elo program?

[Ovyron]

If that's so much, perhaps we could start with a weaker program at ply 1 (or the weakest program at depth 1.)

[Vinvin]

Sure, _if_ Elo system is correct : if elo difference is not = infinity, the weaker player will win sometimes (even when player 1 worth 0 elo and player 2 worth 10^100 elo)

[Ovyron]

I think the real question focuses on how much rating a player needs to have to play perfect chess, assuming chess is a draw from the starting position. A play similar to 32men tablebases should be possible, in where a player no longer can lose a game, and I don't think that's considered by the ELO formula.

[Terry McCracken]

It is an interesting question, but one which is unfortunately impossible to answer. The problem is that the Elo formula doesn't distinguish between wins and draws. So if a player gets 1% of the points, it can because he won 1% of the time, drew 2%, or anywhere in between.

So perhaps the answer is "yes, it's possible", but I'm pretty sure you can't prove that based on the Elo theory (H.G. and others are free to correct me!).

Well it can't be possible if everything being equel. If it were then any impossibility will become possible. The draw issue here isn't relevant.

It's no wonder we can't find common ground for the Rybka GPL issue.

I looked at this thread and smiled.

Terry

[Turk]

up

[bob]

İ asked this question to you before:


İf A can beating B in sometimes...

İf B can beating C sometimes.

"A" must can beating "C" sometimes?İs it true according to you?

İf you are saying "yes",look at this.

1 elo program can beating 2 elo program sometimes.

2 can beating 3......

1 can beating 3 sometimes?

And

1 can beating 10000000000000(forever zero) sometimes?

Best regards and peace.

So long as the probability is non-zero, anything can happen, given enough time. There is no point at which the probability of such outcomes reaches zero. So it can happen.

[bob]

İ asked this question to you before:


İf A can beating B in sometimes...

İf B can beating C sometimes.

"A" must can beating "C" sometimes?İs it true according to you?

İf you are saying "yes",look at this.

1 elo program can beating 2 elo program sometimes.

2 can beating 3......

1 can beating 3 sometimes?

And

1 can beating 10000000000000(forever zero) sometimes?

Best regards and peace.

Using USCF calculation -->
Elo difference:
9999999999999
Win expectency for a difference of 9999999999999 points is 0

The actual value might be slightly larger than zero, but it is small enough that it could not be represented with floating point double. (IOW the expectency is smaller than 1e-308).

I think it is safe to say that we expect the opponent to lose every game (even a draw after quadrillions of games would be very surprising).

Dangerous thinking. "near zero" is not "exactly zero". I can think of simple explanations for this happening. Because this is about probability and not "certainty".

[Dann Corbit]

İ asked this question to you before:


İf A can beating B in sometimes...

İf B can beating C sometimes.

"A" must can beating "C" sometimes?İs it true according to you?

İf you are saying "yes",look at this.

1 elo program can beating 2 elo program sometimes.

2 can beating 3......

1 can beating 3 sometimes?

And

1 can beating 10000000000000(forever zero) sometimes?

Best regards and peace.

So long as the probability is non-zero, anything can happen, given enough time. There is no point at which the probability of such outcomes reaches zero. So it can happen.

On rare occasions very strong programs like Rybka, Hiarcs, Naum, etc will have some problem and perhaps lock up and lose on time.

That's a loss. I have seen this happen myself (absurd losses because one very strong program froze or crashed playing against a weak one).

[Harvey Williamson]

İ asked this question to you before:


İf A can beating B in sometimes...

İf B can beating C sometimes.

"A" must can beating "C" sometimes?İs it true according to you?

İf you are saying "yes",look at this.

1 elo program can beating 2 elo program sometimes.

2 can beating 3......

1 can beating 3 sometimes?

And

1 can beating 10000000000000(forever zero) sometimes?

Best regards and peace.

So long as the probability is non-zero, anything can happen, given enough time. There is no point at which the probability of such outcomes reaches zero. So it can happen.

On rare occasions very strong programs like Rybka, Hiarcs, Naum, etc will have some problem and perhaps lock up and lose on time.

That's a loss. I have seen this happen myself (absurd losses because one very strong program froze or crashed playing against a weak one).

The 1 elo program could also have the best book in the world and score a book win.

[S.Taylor]

İ asked this question to you before:


İf A can beating B in sometimes...

İf B can beating C sometimes.

"A" must can beating "C" sometimes?İs it true according to you?

İf you are saying "yes",look at this.

1 elo program can beating 2 elo program sometimes.

2 can beating 3......

1 can beating 3 sometimes?

And

1 can beating 10000000000000(forever zero) sometimes?

Best regards and peace.

Actually, yes!
A day year old baby can beat Garry Kasparov, or any human world champion in history, if that champion falls asleep or faints in the middle, or defaults the game.
So perhaps, there no absolute dominations in chess.