Answers.Body: <p>There are several things to note:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li><p>Computer ratings are inaccurate because there are so few serious games played between humans and computers that can be used to tune the ratings. Then the rest of the computer ratings are derived from computer v computer games. So it's 2200 plus or minus an error margin that could be hundreds of points.</p></li>
  <li><p>I have no idea where you got the rating number from, but I suspect it's a rounded number and may even be a <em>pure guess</em> by the engine author</p></li>
  <li><p>You have a FIDE rating of 2300, achieved in FIDE rated over the board tournaments. But do you play at exactly the same level against the computer? For me at least, my concentration level in a tournament hall playing for real results is way higher than at home in the evening clicking some pieces against a computer. The computer doesn't care, it is always the same.</p></li>
  <li><p>Ratings hide the fact that style differences exist. Your expected score against a 2200 player is 64%; but there are probably players of that level whose style is hard for you to counter and you do less well against them, there are also players against which you'll score better. The 64% is just an average.</p></li>
  <li><p>Especially the fact that you have <em>10 draws</em> in 12 games suggests the combination of your style and the computer's leads to drawishness. And for instance part of the computer's 2200 rating <em>may be</em> in the fact that while it can draw 2300s a lot, it would also draw against 2100s more than you'd expect.</p></li>
  <li><p>Your hardware may be different than the hardware used to get the rating of 2200</p></li>
  <li><p>And in the end, a 50% score over 12 games is not enough games to conclude that the rating difference is not 100 (which would yield a 64% score over an infinity of games). There is always some variance in results and 12 games is not a lot.</p></li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>So overall I think your 50% score is well within the range of normal results, as that range is broad.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-09T10:01:24.277Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-09-09T10:10:59.917Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-09-09T10:10:59.917Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.Body: <p>What you have to understand is, first, that any rating is just a comparison of players within that pool. So a 2200 on chess.com is not the same as 2200 on lichess.com, or on ICC. They are probably close, but it is not the same.</p>
  
  <p>Second, you need to realize that your three game sample is just not enough to draw any valid conclusions. You are human, so even if your winning expectancy were .95, you can always defy expectations, and make a blunder, and the computer, even handicapped, would still likely take advantage of it.</p>
  
  <p>Lastly, at 2200, you are playing a handicapped computer. It is playing "not best" moves, but how is it playing them? Is it being told to play the fourth best move every time, or is it being told to play the best moves every time, but on the 5th move, play the 10th best move? Either way, you could have an anomaly where it plays less bad moves in an individual game, and when those worse moves do pop up, maybe you miss the opportunity.</p>
  
  <p>The computer can only be handicapped so much. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-06T15:29:14.660Z
Answers.Text: The computer didnt seem to blunder in any of the games.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Software Player
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-06T15:29:51.927Z
Answers.Text: And I have a Fide rating of 2300 so I should win anyway!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Software Player
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-06T15:30:37.787Z
Answers.Text: The computer plays like a GM , I havent seen such good play from a person rated 2200 or even 2300.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Software Player
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-06T15:32:21.663Z
Answers.Text: Maybe my style of play allows the computer to beat me? I play positional, slow chess, I usually don't attack.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Software Player
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-06T21:18:45.013Z
Answers.Text: There is one more possible answer about its rating, and that is that it plays a lot of other computers. That would mean that even handicapped, it is probably stronger than its published rating since while it plays very strong moves against humans, even handicapped moves, when against computers, if it is not play the very best moves, it loses to them every time. Again though, your sample of only three games is insufficient to draw hard conclusions.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-06T23:40:19.230Z
Answers.Text: Update: I played 9 more games and the score is for me: +1 , =10 , -1
Answers.UserDisplayName: Software Player
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-07T05:53:59.457Z
Answers.Text: Sounds like the computer is underrated by 100 points? If you set the computer to 2100 can you then beat it like a 2200 player?
Answers.UserDisplayName: bof
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-08T14:07:50.240Z
Answers.Text: I cant play like a 2200 player due to the fact my rating is 2300.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Software Player
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-09T00:48:55.230Z
Answers.Text: On what site are you 2300?
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-09T09:51:54.077Z
Answers.Text: @PhishMaster: he says FIDE, so not a site but OTB.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-09T10:02:07.803Z
Answers.Text: @SoftwarePlayer: that doesn't follow, my rating is 1900-something and sometimes I can play like a 1200.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-09T10:13:49.837Z
Answers.Text: @RemcoGerlich Thanks. I missed that. I am skeptical based on his strange comments.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-06T15:19:01.303Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-09-06T15:19:01.303Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.Body: <p>If you are rated 2300, the computer is 2200 and you make 1/3, that's not too weird of a result, specially not if you played two of those three games as Black, for instance.</p>
  
  <p>If you played 300 games and socred only 100 points, then you can start to have some suspicion that perhaps the engine is stronger than it says.</p>
  
  <p>Even then, it could also be the case that you perform badly against that particular opponent (the engine), just as it could happen against any human player</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-09T07:14:28.990Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-09-09T07:14:28.990Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.Body: <p>This depends on how those engine ratings you're thinking of are generated in the first place. Ratings are reliable only so much as to compare vs. other players being rated. For example you say Stockfish 7 has rating 2200, but the <a href="https://ccrl.chessdom.com/ccrl/4040/rating_list_all.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">CCRL 40/40 list</a> gives a rating of 3326. Other problems: the strength of an engine depends on the hardware used, and to a lesser extent on the time control.</p>
  
  <p>That said, TCEC attempted to benchmark its ratings to the FIDE ratings recently. The idea was to use Kramnik's rating when he played Fritz in Bahrain in 2002 to anchor Fritz in Bahrain's rating. That rating can then be used for every other engine running on the same hardware.</p>
  
  <p>Based on that, Lc0's rating is currently 3907 (on TCEC hardware), and Stockfish dev is 3895.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-09T14:29:59.357Z
Answers.Text: In lichess.org stockfish 7 level 7 has a rating of 2200.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Software Player
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-09T11:05:25.253Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-09-09T11:05:25.253Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Allure
Answers.Body: <p>From the Stockfish FAQ, it is basically impossible to compare human and engine ELO, which is highly dependent on rating pool (which other engines played), hardware, time control, and choice of opening book (otherwise computer chess at the highest levels is 100% draws), as well as computers playing chess very differently than humans do. The only certainty is engines are much, much stronger than humans.</p>
  <p>In 2016, Erik Varend tried <a href="https://www.talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?t=59332" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a direct comparison of CCRL and FIDE rating systems</a>. The conclusion is there is simply not enough data to draw any meaningful extrapolation. But for the sake of argument, Kai Laskos gives this rule of thumb:</p>
  <p>FIDE rating = 0.70*CCRL rating + 840 ELO points</p>
  <p>So Stockfish 16 at 3600 CCRL could be roughly 3360 FIDE (but it could be hundreds of points off).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-02-19T18:13:18.213Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-02-20T20:29:35.630Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2024-02-20T20:29:35.630Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: qwr
Answers.Body: <p>Ratings depend on the time limit, the players, the method of rating. They are not comparable unless the factors are all the same.  They do not cross boundaries meaningfully.  And all of them are just statistical approximations of how good a player is at a given point in time.  Players improve, some grow older and and do not play as  well.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-14T19:34:15.213Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-12-14T19:34:15.213Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: yobamamama
Body: <p>Yesterday, I play a game against Stockfish 7, and it has 2200 rating points.</p>
  
  <p>I drew 2 games, and lost 1. The point is that if I play against a human-rated 2200 player, I would probably have a positive score against him.</p>
  
  <p>I also noticed that Stockfish 7 played much better than the average 2200 human player strength.</p>
  
  <p>Do human-ratings and machine-ratings show the same strength of play?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-09-12T11:50:48.020Z
Comments.Text: Hi, this post seems to have received a number of decent answers, if you have found one to be particularly satisfactory please consider [accepting](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5234/how-does-accepting-an-answer-work) it, as it's important to give [closure](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/163740/actually-how-important-is-accepting-an-answer-to-the-stack-exchange-model/163743#163743) to well addressed posts. Thanks for considering it.
Comments.UserDisplayName: user929304
Tags: <engines><rating><computer-chess>
Title: Are engine ratings directly comparable to human-level play?
ThreadText: # Are engine ratings directly comparable to human-level play?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-09-06)
  
  Yesterday, I play a game against Stockfish 7, and it has 2200 rating points.
  
  I drew 2 games, and lost 1. The point is that if I play against a human-rated 2200 player, I would probably have a positive score against him.
  
  I also noticed that Stockfish 7 played much better than the average 2200 human player strength.
  
  Do human-ratings and machine-ratings show the same strength of play?
  
  **Tags:** engines, rating, computer-chess
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Hi, this post seems to have received a number of decent answers, if you have found one to be particularly satisfactory please consider [accepting](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5234/how-does-accepting-an-answer-work) it, as it's important to give [closure](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/163740/actually-how-important-is-accepting-an-answer-to-the-stack-exchange-model/163743#163743) to well addressed posts. Thanks for considering it.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 6 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2019-09-06. Score: 7
  
  What you have to understand is, first, that any rating is just a comparison of players within that pool. So a 2200 on chess.com is not the same as 2200 on lichess.com, or on ICC. They are probably close, but it is not the same.
  
  Second, you need to realize that your three game sample is just not enough to draw any valid conclusions. You are human, so even if your winning expectancy were .95, you can always defy expectations, and make a blunder, and the computer, even handicapped, would still likely take advantage of it.
  
  Lastly, at 2200, you are playing a handicapped computer. It is playing "not best" moves, but how is it playing them? Is it being told to play the fourth best move every time, or is it being told to play the best moves every time, but on the 5th move, play the 10th best move? Either way, you could have an anomaly where it plays less bad moves in an individual game, and when those worse moves do pop up, maybe you miss the opportunity.
  
  The computer can only be handicapped so much.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: The computer didnt seem to blunder in any of the games.  
  > **username_0**: And I have a Fide rating of 2300 so I should win anyway!  
  > **username_0**: The computer plays like a GM , I havent seen such good play from a person rated 2200 or even 2300.  
  > **username_0**: Maybe my style of play allows the computer to beat me? I play positional, slow chess, I usually don't attack.  
  > **username_3**: There is one more possible answer about its rating, and that is that it plays a lot of other computers. That would mean that even handicapped, it is probably stronger than its published rating since while it plays very strong moves against humans, even handicapped moves, when against computers, if it is not play the very best moves, it loses to them every time. Again though, your sample of only three games is insufficient to draw hard conclusions.  
  > **username_0**: Update: I played 9 more games and the score is for me: +1 , =10 , -1  
  > **username_4**: Sounds like the computer is underrated by 100 points? If you set the computer to 2100 can you then beat it like a 2200 player?  
  > **username_0**: I cant play like a 2200 player due to the fact my rating is 2300.  
  > **username_3**: On what site are you 2300?  
  > **username_2**: @username_3: he says FIDE, so not a site but OTB.  
  > **username_2**: @SoftwarePlayer: that doesn't follow, my rating is 1900-something and sometimes I can play like a 1200.  
  > **username_3**: @username_2 Thanks. I missed that. I am skeptical based on his strange comments.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2019-09-09. Score: 6
  
  There are several things to note:
  
  * Computer ratings are inaccurate because there are so few serious games played between humans and computers that can be used to tune the ratings. Then the rest of the computer ratings are derived from computer v computer games. So it's 2200 plus or minus an error margin that could be hundreds of points.
  * I have no idea where you got the rating number from, but I suspect it's a rounded number and may even be a *pure guess* by the engine author
  * You have a FIDE rating of 2300, achieved in FIDE rated over the board tournaments. But do you play at exactly the same level against the computer? For me at least, my concentration level in a tournament hall playing for real results is way higher than at home in the evening clicking some pieces against a computer. The computer doesn't care, it is always the same.
  * Ratings hide the fact that style differences exist. Your expected score against a 2200 player is 64%; but there are probably players of that level whose style is hard for you to counter and you do less well against them, there are also players against which you'll score better. The 64% is just an average.
  * Especially the fact that you have *10 draws* in 12 games suggests the combination of your style and the computer's leads to drawishness. And for instance part of the computer's 2200 rating *may be* in the fact that while it can draw 2300s a lot, it would also draw against 2100s more than you'd expect.
  * Your hardware may be different than the hardware used to get the rating of 2200
  * And in the end, a 50% score over 12 games is not enough games to conclude that the rating difference is not 100 (which would yield a 64% score over an infinity of games). There is always some variance in results and 12 games is not a lot.
  
  So overall I think your 50% score is well within the range of normal results, as that range is broad.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2019-09-09. Score: 2
  
  If you are rated 2300, the computer is 2200 and you make 1/3, that's not too weird of a result, specially not if you played two of those three games as Black, for instance.
  
  If you played 300 games and socred only 100 points, then you can start to have some suspicion that perhaps the engine is stronger than it says.
  
  Even then, it could also be the case that you perform badly against that particular opponent (the engine), just as it could happen against any human player
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2019-09-09. Score: 1
  
  This depends on how those engine ratings you're thinking of are generated in the first place. Ratings are reliable only so much as to compare vs. other players being rated. For example you say Stockfish 7 has rating 2200, but the [CCRL 40/40 list](https://ccrl.chessdom.com/ccrl/4040/rating_list_all.html) gives a rating of 3326. Other problems: the strength of an engine depends on the hardware used, and to a lesser extent on the time control.
  
  That said, TCEC attempted to benchmark its ratings to the FIDE ratings recently. The idea was to use Kramnik's rating when he played Fritz in Bahrain in 2002 to anchor Fritz in Bahrain's rating. That rating can then be used for every other engine running on the same hardware.
  
  Based on that, Lc0's rating is currently 3907 (on TCEC hardware), and Stockfish dev is 3895.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: In lichess.org stockfish 7 level 7 has a rating of 2200.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2024-02-19. Score: 1
  
  From the Stockfish FAQ, it is basically impossible to compare human and engine ELO, which is highly dependent on rating pool (which other engines played), hardware, time control, and choice of opening book (otherwise computer chess at the highest levels is 100% draws), as well as computers playing chess very differently than humans do. The only certainty is engines are much, much stronger than humans.
  
  In 2016, Erik Varend tried [a direct comparison of CCRL and FIDE rating systems](https://www.talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?t=59332). The conclusion is there is simply not enough data to draw any meaningful extrapolation. But for the sake of argument, Kai Laskos gives this rule of thumb:
  
  FIDE rating = 0.70\*CCRL rating + 840 ELO points
  
  So Stockfish 16 at 3600 CCRL could be roughly 3360 FIDE (but it could be hundreds of points off).
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2019-12-14. Score: 0
  
  Ratings depend on the time limit, the players, the method of rating. They are not comparable unless the factors are all the same. They do not cross boundaries meaningfully. And all of them are just statistical approximations of how good a player is at a given point in time. Players improve, some grow older and and do not play as well.
  
  
  ---
  
  