chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

  
Louis F Stumpers
Number of games in database: 47
Years covered: 1932 to 1969
Overall record: +13 -27 =7 (35.1%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games
      Based on games in the database; may be incomplete.

Repertoire Explorer
Most played openings
D94 Grunfeld (3 games)
E60 King's Indian Defense (2 games)
B59 Sicilian, Boleslavsky Variation, 7.Nb3 (2 games)

Search Sacrifice Explorer for Louis F Stumpers
Search Google for Louis F Stumpers


LOUIS F STUMPERS
(born Aug-30-1911, died Sep-27-2003, 92 years old) Netherlands

[what is this?]

 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 47  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. L Stumpers vs J Lehr  1-019 1932 EindhovenD18 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Dutch
2. E Sapira vs L Stumpers 0-125 1938 NBSB - FlandersD94 Grunfeld
3. L Stumpers vs E Spanjaard  1-055 1938 Dutch Ch prelimE02 Catalan, Open, 5.Qa4
4. H van Steenis vs L Stumpers  1-025 1939 NED-ch11B02 Alekhine's Defense
5. J van den Bosch vs L Stumpers  ½-½58 1939 NED-ch11A48 King's Indian
6. L Stumpers vs S Landau 0-141 1939 NED-ch11D33 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch
7. A J van den Hoek vs L Stumpers  1-027 1941 BondswedstrijdenB10 Caro-Kann
8. T van Scheltinga vs L Stumpers 1-035 1942 NED-ch12D94 Grunfeld
9. L Stumpers vs Cortlever  ½-½50 1946 NED-ch prelim IE60 King's Indian Defense
10. L Stumpers vs J H Marwitz  1-040 1946 NED-ch prelim ID31 Queen's Gambit Declined
11. L Stumpers vs Euwe 0-130 1946 NED-ch prelim IE60 King's Indian Defense
12. W Wolthuis vs L Stumpers  ½-½52 1946 NED-ch prelim IC58 Two Knights
13. C B van den Berg vs L Stumpers  1-058 1946 NED-ch prelim ID19 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Dutch
14. L Stumpers vs H van Steenis 0-124 1946 NED-ch prelim ID28 Queen's Gambit Accepted, Classical
15. G Fontein vs L Stumpers  ½-½26 1946 NED-ch prelim ID94 Grunfeld
16. V Soultanbeieff vs L Stumpers  ½-½46 1947 Int BD96 Grunfeld, Russian Variation
17. Tartakower vs L Stumpers 1-024 1947 Int BD74 Neo-Grunfeld, 6.cd Nxd5, 7.O-O
18. L Stumpers vs H van Steenis  0-133 1947 Int BD23 Queen's Gambit Accepted
19. L Stumpers vs Grob 1-060 1947 Int BA55 Old Indian, Main line
20. L Stumpers vs F Henneberke 1-043 1948 NED-ch14C92 Ruy Lopez, Closed
21. J T Barendregt vs L Stumpers  0-126 1948 NED-ch14C86 Ruy Lopez, Worrall Attack
22. L Stumpers vs A Vinken  0-133 1948 NED-ch14E21 Nimzo-Indian, Three Knights
23. L Stumpers vs C Vlagsma  0-145 1948 NED-ch14C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
24. L Stumpers vs T van Scheltinga  1-047 1948 NED-ch14C97 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Chigorin
25. L Stumpers vs H Kramer  0-140 1948 NED-ch14B92 Sicilian, Najdorf, Opocensky Variation
 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 47  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Stumpers wins | Stumpers loses  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 262 OF 262 ·  Later Kibitzing>
May-23-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: I had a rush of brains to the head. I wrote a little script that calculates the results of 100 games between two GMs whose rating are initially both 2800, assuming that player A wins every time. For simplicity I used the logistical distribution rather than the normal distribution because I didn't want to mess with those complimentary error functions, but the results are probably qualitatively similar. I printed out their ratings every ten games assuming (1) that the ratings were recalculated after each game and (2) calculating them *cumulatively* over the entire session up to that point. Here's what I found:

Step = 0, A rat = 2800.0000, B rat = 2800.0000 Cumulative: A rat = 2800.0000, B rat = 2800.0000

Step = 10, A rat = 2863.9233, B rat = 2703.9233 Cumulative: A rat = 2851.0615, B rat = 2707.0615

Step = 20, A rat = 2897.7769, B rat = 2577.7769 Cumulative: A rat = 2887.4082, B rat = 2583.4082

Step = 30, A rat = 2913.3323, B rat = 2433.3323 Cumulative: A rat = 2904.2969, B rat = 2440.2969

Step = 40, A rat = 2919.9343, B rat = 2279.9343 Cumulative: A rat = 2911.5054, B rat = 2287.5054

Step = 50, A rat = 2922.6340, B rat = 2122.6340 Cumulative: A rat = 2914.4604, B rat = 2130.4604

Step = 60, A rat = 2923.7205, B rat = 1963.7206 Cumulative: A rat = 2915.6509, B rat = 1971.6509

Step = 70, A rat = 2924.1550, B rat = 1804.1550 Cumulative: A rat = 2916.1270, B rat = 1812.1271

Step = 80, A rat = 2924.3284, B rat = 1644.3282 Cumulative: A rat = 2916.3169, B rat = 1652.3170

Step = 90, A rat = 2924.3975, B rat = 1484.3973 Cumulative: A rat = 2916.3928, B rat = 1492.3928

Step = 100, A rat = 2924.4246, B rat = 1324.4248 Cumulative: A rat = 2916.4229, B rat = 1332.4230

I can draw several conclusions:

1) Player A's gain saturates (reaches its limit) at 125 points (116 point if the scores are cumulated). His rating will never rise past 2925 no matter how many games are played. Since the ratings of the players enter into the logistical formula I am using (the one I posted earlier) only as the *difference* between the two numbers, it is easy to see that as long as they start with the same rating this 125-point limit will always apply.

2) Though player A's rating saturates quickly, player B keeps sinking toward patzerdom and oblivion.

3) Hence the total number of rating points is *not* conserved; it decreases, and if enough games are played it is going to go on decreasing until the unfortunate loser hits 0 or quits chess altogether.

4) It makes little difference whether the rating is recalculated after every game or cumulatively.

May-23-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: I goofed. In my code I used the same "expected value" E for both players, but they should satisfy Ea + Eb = 1. So here are the correct numbers:

Step = 0, A rat = 2800.0000, B rat = 2800.0000 Cumulative: A rat = 2800.0000, B rat = 2800.0000

Step = 10, A rat = 2865.6079, B rat = 2734.3921 Cumulative: A rat = 2854.9727, B rat = 2745.0273

Step = 20, A rat = 2908.9470, B rat = 2691.0530 Cumulative: A rat = 2901.6567, B rat = 2698.3433

Step = 30, A rat = 2940.0710, B rat = 2659.9290 Cumulative: A rat = 2934.6650, B rat = 2665.3350

Step = 40, A rat = 2963.9695, B rat = 2636.0305 Cumulative: A rat = 2959.7229, B rat = 2640.2771

Step = 50, A rat = 2983.2185, B rat = 2616.7815 Cumulative: A rat = 2979.7427, B rat = 2620.2573

Step = 60, A rat = 2999.2659, B rat = 2600.7341 Cumulative: A rat = 2996.3340, B rat = 2603.6660

Step = 70, A rat = 3013.8230, B rat = 2586.1770 Cumulative: A rat = 3010.4607, B rat = 2589.5393

Step = 80, A rat = 3028.3689, B rat = 2571.6311 Cumulative: A rat = 3022.7395, B rat = 2577.2605

Step = 90, A rat = 3042.9148, B rat = 2557.0852 Cumulative: A rat = 3033.5850, B rat = 2566.4150

Step = 100, A rat = 3057.4607, B rat = 2542.5393 Cumulative: A rat = 3043.2896, B rat = 2556.7104

If the 400-point rule is applied, it would cut in around game 60. And clearly the number of rating points is conserved, i.e., Ra + Rb = 5600 always.

May-23-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: One more comment and then I'll quit.

I ran the code for ten million steps (player A beat player B ten million times) with no 400-point rule. Here is a summary of the results:

Step = 0, A rat = 2800.0000, B rat = 2800.0000 Cumulative: A rat = 2800.0000, B rat = 2800.0000

Step = 100, A rat = 3045.0718, B rat = 2554.9282 Cumulative: A rat = 3043.2896, B rat = 2556.7104

Step = 1000, A rat = 3251.2622, B rat = 2348.7378 Cumulative: A rat = 3251.0859, B rat = 2348.9141

Step = 10000, A rat = 3452.7832, B rat = 2147.2168 Cumulative: A rat = 3462.1563, B rat = 2137.8438

Step = 100000, A rat = 3653.3252, B rat = 1947.0238 Cumulative: A rat = 3462.2500, B rat = 2137.7500

Step = 1000000, A rat = 3833.0151, B rat = 1744.9700 Cumulative: A rat = 3463.0000, B rat = 2137.0000

Step =10000000, A rat = 3833.0151, B rat = 1666.9517 Cumulative: A rat = 3472.0000, B rat = 2128.0000

If you look at the results up to 1,000,000, each multiple of ten (e.g., from 100 to 1,000, from 1,000 to 10,000, etc.) adds about 200 points to A's rating and subtracts 200 from B's. I'm willing to bet -- a small bet anyway -- that that's correct, although I have no clue why. But if so, it means that the ratings are *logarithmic* functions of the number of games played.

However, the last two entries are suspect because the A and B ratings no longer sum to 5600, so there's some kind of roundoff error or fixed-point overflow. But I'm not going to futz around with it any more tonight.

May-23-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: <al wazir>:<But I'm not going to futz around with it any more tonight.>

Please futz around a little more. Try this: the game result is calculated by using =ROUND(RAND()+E-0.5,0), where E is expected score based on current rating difference. Or you can use some other formula that returns 1 if a random number on (0,1) is less than E, otherwise 0.

If the two players start with equal ratings, then you should find that the ratings diverge from one another almost as fast as in your deterministic test.

Note that this is the simulation of two players performing in accordance with current rating, with no draws.

May-23-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: I can explain the logarithmic dependence I found numerically.

Let D = Ra - Rb, the difference between the two ratings. If D is several times larger than 400, as is true after the number of games n becomes big enough, we can write approximately

1 - E = 10^(-D/400),

so the increase in D from one step to the next is approximately given by

(D' - D)/32 = 10^(-D/400).

Look for a solution for the nth iterate D_n in the form

D_n = c + d log n,

where log denotes the logarithm to the base 10. Substitution in the previous equation yields

(d/32)10^(c/400)log(1 + 1/n) = n^(-d/400).

In terms of the natural logarithm ln, for large n,

log(1 + 1/n) = ln(1 + 1/n)/ln 10 = 1/(2.3026 n).

So a solution exists if d = 400 and

10^(c/400) = (32/400)x2.3026 = 0.18421, or c = -293.88.

Check: For n = 100,000, -293.88 + 400 log n = 1706.12. The numerical result was 3653.33 - 1947.02 = 1706.31.

TA DA!

May-23-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Marmot PFL: There actually was a player who played prison matches like your hypothetical match, and raised his rating over 2600. Ridiculous for USCF to allow that.
May-23-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Marmot PFL: 2702 to be exact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude...

May-23-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Karposian: <Marmot PFL: Ridiculous for USCF to allow that.>

Yes, clearly an abuse of USCF's rating system.

Another example is Russian businessman Vladimir Afromeev. He has organized a bunch of tournaments himself, with the sole purpose of boosting his own rating to a ridiculously inflated level (his current rating is 2646).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladim...

May-23-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: Then there is a still better-known player.

Y'all ever hear of Zurab Azmaiparashvili?

The game Azmaiparashvili vs Kurajica, 1995, which was annotated in Informator, is from an event fixed by Azmai.

http://www.365chess.com/tournaments...

May-23-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: <Karposian> Thanks for that wiki link!

On the internet, nobody knows you are Afromeev's cat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the...

May-23-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Karposian: <Tiggler> You're very welcome!

So, I guess when playing chess on the Internet, you really don't know <who> or <what> you're playing against :)

May-23-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <Tiggler: Try this: the game result is calculated by using =ROUND(RAND()+E-0.5,0), where E is expected score based on current rating difference. Or you can use some other formula that returns 1 if a random number on (0,1) is less than E, otherwise 0.> E is the expected result from the point of view of A. If E is close to 1 (as it would be if A's rating is much higher than B's), then your algorithm would make a win much likelier than a loss. But if E falls below 0.5 early on, B might have a few wins and get ahead. Once that happens he'll be in the driver's seat. It's pure chance which player will wind up running away. Is that what you want? And what about draws? Don't you want to allow them?
May-23-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <Tiggler>: It doesn't look as if your conjecture was borne out. Here's what I found, using your algorithm:

Step = 0, A rat = 2800.0000, B rat = 2800.0000 Cumulative: A rat = 2800.0000, B rat = 2800.0000

Step = 10, A rat = 2812.4998, B rat = 2787.5002 Cumulative: A rat = 2812.4998, B rat = 2787.5002

Step = 100, A rat = 2639.4912, B rat = 2960.5088 Cumulative: A rat = 2639.4912, B rat = 2960.5088

Step = 1000, A rat = 2518.1492, B rat = 3081.8508 Cumulative: A rat = 2518.1492, B rat = 3081.8508

Step = 10000, A rat = 2429.1056, B rat = 3170.8944 Cumulative: A rat = 2429.1056, B rat = 3170.8944

Step = 100000, A rat = 3310.9835, B rat = 2289.0165 Cumulative: A rat = 3310.9835, B rat = 2289.0165

Step = 1000000, A rat = 3355.3547, B rat = 2244.6453 Cumulative: A rat = 3355.3547, B rat = 2244.6453

Step =10000000, A rat = 3775.4923, B rat = 1824.5077 Cumulative: A rat = 3775.4923, B rat = 1824.5077

Here's how I coded it (ran2 is a top-flight pseudo-random number generator taken from _Numerical Recipes_):

program Elo
! ---Declare
integer*4 idum, LDO, n, ngames, nprint

real*8 Arat0, Arat, Arat1, Brat0, Brat, Brat1, E, Etot, S, Stot

parameter (LDO=16)
data idum, ngames, nprint / -1111111, 10000000, 1 /

data Arat0, Brat0 / 2800.0, 2800.0 /

! ---Input
OPEN (UNIT=LDO, FILE='OUTPUT', STATUS='UNKNOWN')

Arat = Arat0
Brat = Brat0
Arat1 = Arat0
Brat1 = Brat0
Etot = 0.d0
Stot = 0.d0
do n = 0, ngames
if (mod(n,nprint) .eq. 0) then
write (LDO,1) n, Arat, Brat
write (LDO,2) Arat1, Brat1
nprint= 10*nprint
endif
E = 1.0/(1 + 10.d0**((Brat-Arat)/400.d0))
S = 0.0
if (ran2(idum) .lt. E) S = 1.d0
! if (Arat - Brat .gt. 400.d0) E = 10.d0/11.d0
Arat = Arat + 16.d0*(S - E)
Brat = Brat + 16.d0*(E - S)
E = 1.d0/(1.d0 + 10.d0**((Brat1-Arat1)/400.d0))
Etot = Etot + E
Stot = Stot + S
Arat1 = Arat0 + 16.0*(Stot - Etot)
Brat1 = Brat0 + 16.0*(Etot - Stot)
enddo
Arat1 = Arat0 + 16.d0*(float(n) - Etot)
Brat1 = Brat0 + 16.d0*(0.0 - Etot)
1 format (// 'Step =', I8, ', A rat = ', f10.4, ', B rat = ', f10.4)

2 format ('Cumulative: A rat = ', f10.4, ', B rat = ', f10.4)

end

As you can see, I switched to double precision (64-bit arithmetic), which seems to have solved the roundoff problem. But I am a little troubled because the results for the cumulative computation of the ratings are the same as the ratings calculated game-by-game. I don't think they should be *exactly* the same. (They weren't yesterday when I was working in single precision.)

May-24-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: <al wazir: <Tiggler>: It doesn't look as if your conjecture was borne out.>

Thanks for trying this. Depends on your interpretation of <almost as fast>, but I think they diverge pretty fast. Point I hoped that you might show is that this is an unstable system and the two ratings fly apart. Same is true if there are 100,000 players, but I did not think that was so obvious until I tried it with a few hundred.

No draws makes the simulation easier to code. With draws you need some formula for expected draw percentage, and an extra random number selection. It slows the result down is all.

May-24-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: If you change only this line:

E = 1.0/(1 + 10.d0**((Brat-Arat)/400.d0))

to

E = 1.0/(1 + 10.d0**(0.98*(Brat-Arat)/400.d0))

then the higher rank player does not quite perform up to rating, and the lower ranker player does a bit better. The system does not diverge.

It's Ohnstein-Uhlenbeck, in the jargon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornste...

May-24-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <Tiggler: If you change only this line [...] The system does not diverge.> So you think there's something magical about 400? Changing it to 408.16 changes everything?
May-24-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: <al wazir> No. I said <only this line>.

That is the line that is used to generate the game results. There is another line, which you don't change, that generates the new rating.

It is the small mismatch between these that changes everything, and makes the process mean-reverting.

I give credit to <user: gypsy> for putting me onto this idea a couple of years ago.

May-25-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <Tiggler: That is the line that is used to generate the game results. There is another line, which you don't change, that generates the new rating.> Sorry, I can't believe you mean that. The line you identified is the only line that assigns a value to E. The line that "generates the new rating" uses the *same* value of E. What I think you want is to use the new value of E in the criterion for who wins and the old value in the formula for the new ratings.

But on the hypothesis that you did mean what you wrote, I made that change and only that change (I even used the same seed for the RNG.) Here are the results:

Step = 0, A rat = 2800.0000, B rat = 2800.0000 Cumulative: A rat = 2800.0000, B rat = 2800.0000

Step = 10, A rat = 2812.5601, B rat = 2787.4399 Cumulative: A rat = 2812.4998, B rat = 2787.5002

Step = 100, A rat = 2637.2155, B rat = 2962.7845 Cumulative: A rat = 2639.4912, B rat = 2960.5088

Step = 1000, A rat = 2519.4177, B rat = 3080.5823 Cumulative: A rat = 2524.3533, B rat = 3075.6467

Step = 10000, A rat = 2421.9912, B rat = 3178.0088 Cumulative: A rat = 2428.9835, B rat = 3171.0165

Step = 100000, A rat = 3321.3925, B rat = 2278.6075 Cumulative: A rat = 3310.9835, B rat = 2289.0165

Step = 1000000, A rat = 3366.2763, B rat = 2233.7237 Cumulative: A rat = 3355.3547, B rat = 2244.6453

Step =10000000, A rat = 3795.3910, B rat = 1804.6090 Cumulative: A rat = 3775.4911, B rat = 1824.5089

(Note that the "cumulative" calculation reproduces the previous results.) I don't see any qualitative difference, and only a minor quantitative one.

May-25-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: <What I think you want is to use the new value of E in the criterion for who wins and the old value in the formula for the new ratings.>

Yes, that is what I intended. I mis-parsed your code.

May-25-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <Tiggler: Yes, that is what I intended.>

Results:

Step = 0, A rat = 2800.0000, B rat = 2800.0000

Step = 10, A rat = 2812.4998, B rat = 2787.5002

Step = 100, A rat = 2651.9983, B rat = 2948.0017

Step = 1000, A rat = 2524.4485, B rat = 3075.5515

Step = 10000, A rat = 2438.5278, B rat = 3161.4722

Step = 100000, A rat = 2516.2811, B rat = 3083.7189

Step = 1000000, A rat = 2264.3728, B rat = 3335.6272

Step =10000000, A rat = 2069.8705, B rat = 3530.1295

May-25-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <Tiggler>: The last two entries differ by roughly 200 points, so I assumed that the trend had reached its asymptotic, logarithmic stage. But then I thought, one sparrow doesn't make a summer. Let's run it out further, to one trillion games:

Step = 10000000, A rat = 2069.8705, B rat = 3530.1295

Step = 100000000, A rat = 2690.8915, B rat = 2909.1085

Step =1000000000, A rat = 2355.8142, B rat = 3244.1858

Evidently the behavior is *not* logarithmic. It looks as if you're right.

May-25-15  diceman: <John F. Nash Jr., Math Genius Defined by a ‘Beautiful Mind,’ Dies at 86

John F. Nash Jr., a mathematician who shared a Nobel Prize in 1994 for work that greatly extended the reach and power of modern economic theory and whose long descent into severe mental illness and eventual recovery were the subject of a book and a film, both titled “A Beautiful Mind,” was killed, along with his wife, in a car crash on Saturday in New Jersey. He was 86. Dr. Nash and his wife, Alicia, 82, were in a taxi on the New Jersey Turnpike in Monroe Township around 4:30 p.m. when the driver lost control while veering from the left lane to the right and hit a guardrail and another car, Sgt. Gregory Williams of the New Jersey State Police said.>

May-25-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: <al wazir> I appreciate your patience and persistence in trying this out. I expected the two values to exhibit some random walks in the vicinity of the mean and was surprised that the amplitude of those is so large. The number 0.98, of course, is an adjustable parameter: the smaller it is, the stronger is the mean reversion.

I chose 0.98 because in my old simulation of 200 players that was the value that caused the standard deviation of the population rating distribution to converge to about 270, close to the actual one for FIDE ratings.

May-26-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: That "trillion" should be a billion, of course. It took about five minutes to run on my desktop. If I had actually run a trillion steps (games), it would have taken half a week.
May-26-15  TheFocus: Well, I see no one showed up for the first day of ninja school.

Or did they?

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 262)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 262 OF 262 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. Don't post personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific player and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2015, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies