I am not the next Bobby Fischer, but I would like to know how accurate the Playchess server is....I average about 1800 in normal time controls and about 1500 in Blitz
Here is an online test to assess an estimate of your elo based on solving some test positions:
Now, just for fun, I let Rybka 2.3.2a 32bit examine each position for 30 seconds (Here are the FENs if anyone is interested):
Only one of my moves matched Rybka's. And the Rybka's rating is...
and I thought that this would for sure be the strongest since it brings the only inactive piece in play and taking it is suicide because if the Bishop is taken then Knight takes with tempo that looks totally devastating with either mate or queen loss because a check on f6 looks like almost mate. But it seems that this site thinks that Nxh7 is stronger. When I put Nxh7 I get a higher rating than Be4 ??? Although it seems that Nxh7 wins ... a strong human would much more likely go for Be4 because it brings another piece into attack with tempo ... and Rybka agrees since it also chooses Be4. To get penalized for Be4 is just silly and shows this is not accurate. I am curious to see what they thought was strongest in all these positions.
In this position I chose Bxa6 ... Rybka also thinks it is playable since it wins a pawn and could possibly impede white castling. BUT .... apparently you get the most points for playing Rxf3 ?? I ofcourse thought about that but quickly saw that white simply takes with bishop. Rxf3 only works if white takes with pawn .... but white can simply take with bishop and Knight is hanging and rook is pinned .... what they think is best is actually losing !!! I am now wondering what the rating of the player who used these examples has?
I don't play over the board chess regularly these days so have no official rating to compare this with but my blitz rating on the Playchess server is around 1620. Therefore this seems to be fairly close to the mark, as I would expect to be stronger at slower time controls than at blitz.
M Ansari - I was interested how you knew which move was highest rated by the site's authors as I couldn't find any information on this - it just gives an overall elo at the end with no breakdown, unless I'm looking in the wrong place ?
> Btw. if you put in the worst moves you can find (queen sacs...) you get 1000 Elo ;-)
Hm, so the rating for a player that gives away the queen when possible is 1000 and Rybka is 2100, interesting ;)
> I had no idea random move generators were so strong. :-)
Well, this wasn't a random move generator, this was a worst move generator ;)
> what they think is best is actually losing !!!
Black gets two minor pieces and a bishop pair for a rook and a pawn. If you don't know the elementary piece values, you're clearly not qualified to disagree with the solution. :)
Edit: the fact that you got the position wrong may have had something to do with it. The pawn on e7 should be on e6!
> Edit: the fact that you got the position wrong may have had something to do with it. The pawn on e7 should be on e6!
Well, oops! That was my fault
I manually rebuilt those positions on Winboard and pasted them here; I had them side by side and could not spot that the pawn was on the wrong position. I apologize for the confusion that my mistake could have caused (I've fixed the position now.)
Position 1: Rxf3
Position 2: Bf4
Position 3: c6
Position 4: e6
Position 5: Bc5
Position 6: Bxf6
Position 7: Nh7
Position 8: Bd8
Position 9: Bd4
Position 10: Qd7
It's pretty simplistic: They have a few rated moves for each position, and any others get 1000. Then they average the score over all ten positions.
I got 1350 spending twenty seconds or so per position, which I think is slightly too high. :-)
/* Steinar */
To be honest I think that the best way to estimate your ELO rating is to play on Playchess ... see what your rating stabilizes at ... and then subtract 200 or 300 ELO points and you should be about right.
> and then subtract 200 or 300 ELO points and you should be about right.
Yah, if you are a monkey!! hah
Rybka scoring 2110 isn't all that surprising--since not all of these are tactical shots, and we know that Rybka's initial evaluation of positions is below IM level (and some think far below), it shouldn't be shocking that Rybka would score so "low." There is, of course, the accuracy issue.
10 0:00 +1.52 1.Nxh7 Nxh7 2.hxg6 fxg6 3.Qxg6+ Kh8 4.Qxe6 Ne7 5.Nf5 Nxf5 6.gxf5 a4 (32.108) 46
10 0:00 +1.13 1.hxg6 hxg6 2.Qh8+ Kxh8 3.Nxf7+ Kg7 4.Nxd8 a4 5.Bf1 Na7 6.f4 (37.810) 48
11 0:01 +1.54 1.Nxh7 Nxh7 2.hxg6 fxg6 3.Qxg6+ Kh8 4.Qxe6 Ne7 5.Nf5 Nxf5 6.gxf5 a4 7.Qxd5 Qxd5 (54.356) 47
11 0:01 +1.10 1.hxg6 hxg6 2.Qh8+ Kxh8 3.Nxf7+ Kg7 4.Nxd8 Na7 5.f4 Bd7 6.Kf2 Nb5 (81.246) 51
12 0:02 +1.53 1.Nxh7 Nxh7 2.hxg6 fxg6 3.Qxg6+ Kh8 4.Qxe6 Ne7 5.Nf5 Nxf5 6.gxf5 Qg5 7.Qc8+ Qg8 (115.091) 51
12 0:03 +1.21 1.hxg6 hxg6 2.Qh8+ Kxh8 3.Nxf7+ Kg7 4.Nxd8 Na7 5.f4 Bd7 6.Bf1 Nb5 7.Bxb5 Bxb5 (185.214) 56
13 0:04 +1.26 1.Nxh7 Nxh7 2.hxg6 fxg6 3.Qxg6+ Kh8 4.Qxe6 Ne7 5.Nf5 Nxf5 6.gxf5 Qc7 7.Qh6 Bc6 (242.547) 55
13 0:08 +1.26 1.hxg6 fxg6 2.Nxh7 Nxh7 3.Qxg6+ Kh8 4.Qxe6 Ne7 5.Nf5 Nxf5 6.gxf5 Qc7 7.Qh6 Bc6 (500.286) 58
14 0:48 +1.88 1.Be4 Be8 2.hxg6 fxg6 3.Nh5 Qe7 4.Nf6+ Kh8 5.Bd3 Nd6 6.Nfxh7 Nxh7 7.Nxh7 Qxh7 (2.618.536) 54
14 0:10 +1.32 1.Nxh7 Nxh7 2.hxg6 fxg6 3.Qxg6+ Kh8 4.Qxe6 Ne7 5.Nf5 Nxf5 6.gxf5 Qc7 7.Qh6 Bc6 (572.057) 57
14 0:10 +1.32 1.hxg6 fxg6 2.Nxh7 Nxh7 3.Qxg6+ Kh8 4.Qxe6 Ne7 5.Nf5 Nxf5 6.gxf5 Qc7 7.Qh6 Bc6 (610.516) 58
15 0:57 +2.10 1.Be4 Nd6 2.hxg6 hxg6 3.exd6 dxe4 4.Qh8+ Kxh8 5.Nxf7+ Kg7 6.Nxd8 Bd3 7.Nb7 Kf7 (3.060.234) 54
15 0:59 +1.32 1.Nxh7 Nxh7 2.hxg6 fxg6 3.Qxg6+ Kh8 4.Qxe6 Ne7 5.Nf5 Nxf5 6.gxf5 Qc7 7.Qh6 Bc6 (3.154.732) 54
best move: Bg2-e4 time: 1:04.513 min n/s: 54.557 nodes: 3.426.596
> the position you posted above looks more like a Benoni.
On this postion, Nh7 is not even in the top 4:
10 0:00 +0.19 1...Qe7 2.h3 Rd8 3.Qc2 a5 4.a3 Nb6 5.a4 c6 6.Bg3 Qc7 (38.476) 62
10 0:00 +0.19 1...b6 2.h3 Bb7 3.Qc2 Qe7 4.b4 a5 5.a3 Rfd8 6.Bg3 Rdc8 (38.477) 62
10 0:01 +0.22 1...Rb8 2.b4 Qe7 3.Qc2 b6 4.h3 Bb7 5.a3 Rfe8 6.Bf3 (100.252) 60
10 0:01 +0.22 1...Qd8 2.b4 b6 3.Qc2 Bb7 4.a3 Qe7 5.h3 Rfd8 6.Bf3 (110.257) 58
10 0:01 +0.23 1...a5 2.a3 Nb6 3.f3 c5 4.Qb3 Ra6 5.Nb5 Qe7 (109.059) 59
10 0:00 +0.28 1...Nb6 2.a4 a5 3.f3 Bd7 4.Bf2 Qd8 5.Qb3 (47.974) 56
11 0:01 +0.19 1...Qe7 2.h3 Rd8 3.Qc2 a5 4.a3 Nb6 5.a4 c6 6.Bg3 Qc7 (110.258) 58
11 0:01 +0.19 1...b6 2.h3 Bb7 3.Qc2 Qe7 4.b4 a5 5.a3 Rfd8 6.Bg3 Rdc8 (110.259) 58
11 0:02 +0.22 1...Rb8 2.b4 Qe7 3.Qc2 b6 4.h3 Bb7 5.a3 Rfe8 6.Bf3 (163.006) 62
11 0:02 +0.22 1...Qd8 2.b4 b6 3.Qc2 Bb7 4.a3 Qe7 5.h3 Rfd8 6.Bf3 (163.006) 62
12 0:02 +0.19 1...Qe7 2.h3 Rd8 3.Qc2 a5 4.a3 Nb6 5.a4 c6 6.Bg3 Qc7 (163.007) 61
12 0:02 +0.19 1...b6 2.h3 Bb7 3.Qc2 Qe7 4.b4 a5 5.a3 Rfd8 6.Bg3 Rdc8 (163.008) 61
12 0:05 +0.22 1...Qd8 2.b4 b6 3.Qc2 Bb7 4.a3 Qe7 5.h3 Rfd8 6.Bf3 (312.562) 61
12 0:05 +0.23 1...Rb8 2.b4 Qe7 3.Qc2 b6 4.h3 Bb7 5.a3 Rfe8 6.Bf3 (312.561) 61
13 0:09 +0.19 1...Qe7 2.h3 Rd8 3.Qc2 a5 4.a3 Nb6 5.a4 c6 6.Bg3 Qc7 (488.000) 54
13 0:09 +0.19 1...b6 2.h3 Bb7 3.Qc2 Qe7 4.b4 a5 5.a3 Rfd8 6.Bg3 Rdc8 (488.000) 54
13 0:09 +0.22 1...Qd8 2.b4 b6 3.Qc2 Bb7 4.a3 Qe7 5.h3 Rfd8 6.Bf3 (488.001) 54
13 0:20 +0.23 1...Rb8 2.b4 c5 3.a3 b6 4.Bg3 Bb7 5.h3 Qd8 6.Bf3 (1.100.371) 55
14 1:26 +0.24 1...b6 2.a3 Bb7 3.b4 Rc8 4.Qb3 Qd8 5.f3 Qe7 6.Bd3 c5 (4.254.057) 50
14 1:44 +0.24 1...Qd8 2.b4 a5 3.a3 c5 4.Qb3 Qb6 5.Na4 Qc7 6.Bg3 axb4 (5.192.786) 51
14 1:12 +0.25 1...Qe7 2.a3 Nb6 3.f3 a5 4.Qb3 a4 5.Qb4 Ra6 6.Nb5 Rd8 (3.586.098) 50
14 2:01 +0.25 1...a5 2.a3 Nb6 3.f3 Qe7 4.Qb3 a4 5.Qb4 Ra6 6.Nb5 Rd8 (6.088.644) 51
14 1:52 +0.26 1...Rb8 2.b4 c5 3.a3 b6 4.Bg3 Bb7 5.h3 Qd8 6.Bf3 Qc7 (5.634.080) 51
best move: b7-b6 time: 2:20.251 min n/s: 50.172 nodes: 6.871.917
I'm not sure I agree with your statement about getting more reward per unit processing in the middle game either. There are some middle game positions where this is true and others where it isn't, just as there are in the opening and in the end game.
The question is how much worse does an engine look in the end game when we can compare its moves to exhaustive search (tablebases) than it would in another position where it would take a huge amount of time and effort to show that the engine's output was seriously flawed? I'm not convinced that Rybka 2.3.2a's middle game play won't look just as flawed ten years from now when we play it against the best at that time.
The problems are setup in a way which makes it feel like a real game ... you get to see your opponents move and then react. Ofcourse it is time based as well so you get credit for solving a problem quickly. It will dramatically improve your tactical awareness and thus probably also improve your overall chess ELO.
(or maybe Nc6-a5!? or Nc6-e7!?) looks like reasonable moves in Q10.
Ha, seriously though I have never had someone professionally teach me how to play chess and I want to be better!!
But Rybka's chess understanding is on the lower side of the 2000 to 2600 range, and the test was more of a test of chess understanding, so its results for Rybka are fairly consistent, within error bars (which I would guess are on the order of 200 elo points), with what is known about Rybka. Larry puts Rybka's positional understanding at about 2300 elo, while Vas puts it a bit lower; I recall estimates in the 1900 to 2100 range, though I don't know his current estimate.
In this position I see many reasonable moves, and although Nh7 might be playable I am not so sure it is the best. Personally I see that black needs to develop his bishop and although Nh7 with the idea of Nd7 f6 might release the bishop ... so will the simple b6 and then Bb7. There are other flexible waiting moves also possible that are probably just as strong and are more dependent on the style of the player or how much risk he wants to take ... there is no one definitive best move ... which is why such a test is useless in figuring out the strength of a player. Qe7 which was considered strongest by Rybka looks bad because it pins the Queen ... but I am sure that Rybka sees the pin as harmless and black still has all options open after this waiting move. I will guarantee one thing though ... that Rybka will prove that any of its top 10 moves in this position are winning against any of us here ;)
Kasparov always said that computers have their own understanding of chess and that it does not necessarily match with ours ... and is not necessarily more correct than ours.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill