- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

DANGER, rating system will break if bots play rated !

#32

That makes sense @Toadofsky. But how will this work for variant chess? Can I make my own book for each variant?

That makes sense @Toadofsky. But how will this work for variant chess? Can I make my own book for each variant?
#33

@relevantproblem You can make an opening book for all variants (although I haven't looked at this in several years and am not 100% certain it works):
https://github.com/ddugovic/polyglot

CAPTCHA:

https://lichess.org/xMCYikA7#70

@relevantproblem You can make an opening book for all variants (although I haven't looked at this in several years and am not 100% certain it works): https://github.com/ddugovic/polyglot CAPTCHA: https://lichess.org/xMCYikA7#70
#34

@Toadofsky is python-chess supports variant extension of polyglot at all?

@Toadofsky is python-chess supports variant extension of polyglot at all?
#35

@Dopaminergic_Chess
are there any sources for this? like even link to forums that talk about that?
Are you sure that the rating curve you saw didn't just show "engine ratings included"? I am asking because if it did then it would look exactly as you described, are there really that many people who consistently draw/win engines to create something like that, or any other explanation how engines could create that? Has it been ascertained that it is not because of some other factors?
I agree about it being more mechanical/puzzle like to play against engines, however this could change with the advent of artificial intelligence, though it would require 'discriminating' against the -classical chess engines - not allowing them to affect ratings and one would have to trust the developer is indeed using artificial intelligence engine, Leela already plays much more human like than any other engine, including blundering, doing speculative/intuitive sacrifices etc.

@Dopaminergic_Chess are there any sources for this? like even link to forums that talk about that? Are you sure that the rating curve you saw didn't just show "engine ratings included"? I am asking because if it did then it would look exactly as you described, are there really that many people who consistently draw/win engines to create something like that, or any other explanation how engines could create that? Has it been ascertained that it is not because of some other factors? I agree about it being more mechanical/puzzle like to play against engines, however this could change with the advent of artificial intelligence, though it would require 'discriminating' against the -classical chess engines - not allowing them to affect ratings and one would have to trust the developer is indeed using artificial intelligence engine, Leela already plays much more human like than any other engine, including blundering, doing speculative/intuitive sacrifices etc.
#36

@lichapibot , its good if engines have the random factor and change their oppening books to avoid loosing lines, which is indeed a kind of oppening. But since the public may add more and more bots, there will still be many bots which do not have this flexibility. Thus the potential for human rating distortions will always be present.

@BermudaGhostShip , ICC is a paid club and they do not publish their rating distribution. However, I have read from internal stuff comments that something bizarre was happening to their rating distribution, streaching it up and maing it double peaked (bimodal). For me that makes a lot of sense. It explains why some GMs there reach 3600+ blitz rating even though my ICC blitz rating there is about 400 points lower than my lichess rating.

@lichapibot , its good if engines have the random factor and change their oppening books to avoid loosing lines, which is indeed a kind of oppening. But since the public may add more and more bots, there will still be many bots which do not have this flexibility. Thus the potential for human rating distortions will always be present. @BermudaGhostShip , ICC is a paid club and they do not publish their rating distribution. However, I have read from internal stuff comments that something bizarre was happening to their rating distribution, streaching it up and maing it double peaked (bimodal). For me that makes a lot of sense. It explains why some GMs there reach 3600+ blitz rating even though my ICC blitz rating there is about 400 points lower than my lichess rating.
#37

@relevantproblem, lol, you're wrong about #9, just look at this game: https://lichess.org/Swz3WZrS/
in profile, in game room — everywhere my rating raised down at 8 points.

@relevantproblem, lol, you're wrong about #9, just look at this game: https://lichess.org/Swz3WZrS/ in profile, in game room — everywhere my rating raised down at 8 points.
#38

oh hell. @VelociraptorRex is right. All games against BOT acconuts are affecting human ratings now.

So Lichess ratings charts are doomed to a deep disruption, sadly.

oh hell. @VelociraptorRex is right. All games against BOT acconuts are affecting human ratings now. So Lichess ratings charts are doomed to a deep disruption, sadly.
#39

Doc Brown is calling in: playing rated games against engines might disrupt the time space continuum.

Doc Brown is calling in: playing rated games against engines might disrupt the time space continuum.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.