Magnus Carlsen, according to Chess.com's "CAPS" (Computer Aggregated Precision Score), with Vladimir Kramnik #2, Garry Kasparov #3, Bobby Fischer #4, and on it goes. It's a bit interesting, but the concept seems rather a lot like IM and computer science professor Ken Regan's Intrinsic Performance Ratings (IPRs), which have been well-known for years now - see this profile, for instance. (I didn't see any mention of him or his work either in that article or in this one, which is really surprising.)
Entries in Ken Regan (17)
International Master and computer science professor Ken Regan has been mentioned with some regularity in these "pages", and it's time once more to draw attention to some of his recent work. On his (co-authored) blog, Gödel's Lost Letter, he has three recent posts on the recently concluded world championship match between Magnus Carlsen and Sergey Karjakin.
That's one way of expressing an interesting finding noted by IM and computer science professor Ken Regan. In brief, the finding is that players with a slight - even a very slight - advantage tend to blunder much less than those with a slight - even a very slight - disadvantage. Interesting, and possibly practical.
We've already reported on this event several times, but now that it's officially over we can put it to bed: Komodo 9.3 is the winner of the eighth season of the TCEC (Top Chess Engine Championship), winning with surprising ease against Stockfish (021115), 53.5-46.5. There were, as usual, a LOT of draw - 89 of them - which means that in terms of decisive games Komodo beat Stockfish 9-2.
Komodo's rating (and Stockfish's too, on TCEC) is above 3200. This is obviously well beyond the range of even the finest carbon-based chess players in the world, but how would Komodo fare against, say, a 32-piece tablebase? (I would say "against God", but divine omniscience extends beyond the ability to play "perfect" chess - God could choose among the equally "perfect" options those which would be hardest for Komodo to handle.) One might think that such a question is not only unanswerable with any specificity, but unanswerable period. Not being able to play perfectly ourselves, who knows?
I'm not sure that Ken Regan knows, but he has offered some of his musing on the topic, and he suspects that the rating of a perfect player may be around 3600. We'll see!
It was live a few days ago, but in case you didn't get the chance then and want to see it now, here you go: this link will take you straight to his spot at the conference.
Ken Regan, whose work has been mentioned and discussed on this blog many times (and in many other places as well), will be giving a TEDx talk live in a little more than half an hour from now, at 10:40 a.m. ET. The primary focus of Regan's work has been to develop a sophisticated algorithm to help detect chess cheaters, and as an added side benefit it can be used to evaluate players' performances in various interesting ways. (One surprising result is that contrary to popular belief, the FIDE ratings have not been inflating over the years but have been rather stable.)
Ken Regan needs no introduction to long-time readers of this blog. He is an International Master and an associate professor in computer science professor at SUNY Buffalo, and is best known nowadays within the chess community for his work on "intrinsic performance ratings" or IPRs. His work has been mentioned regularly on this blog, and he has also been a frequent commentator here and has guest posted once or twice. (He's very welcome to do so again, too!)
If you haven't noticed him or his work here or elsewhere, or would like to know a bit more about this interesting character, Howard Goldowsky has written a long and very worthwhile feature article profiling him for the June issue of Chess Life; happily, for those who don't subscribe to that magazine, that article is also available online. Do have a look!
Still another post by one of our favorite and most valued commenters, on the issue of cheating in chess and how to fairly and properly nab the bad guys.