Author: blass uri
Date: 09:41:03 05/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 2000 at 12:27:19, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On May 10, 2000 at 11:37:45, blass uri wrote: > >>Most of the results were close to 15:5 so when something is significantly >>different it is natural to call it an unusual result and it is logical first to >>check if there is a problem with the games with these results. > >We're talking about results at the same timecontrol. Results can diverge a lot >when going from one timecontrol to another (check the Nunn tests at Chessfuns >site). There were 2 test which gave the same 15-5 score and that isn't enough >for a conclusion. There were _no_ proof that the 11-9 result was bogus. Chessfun found that the 11-9 result was bogus and that Fritz was slower in these games. 15-5 is not only the result of the 2 matches at the same time control but also similiar to the results of other time control(there were results between 18-2 and 13-7). Uri And if >there were, what makes you assume that the 15-5 result is correct. There's no >logic in your argumentation as far as I can tell. QED. Assuming that the 15-5 result is correct is the most logical assumption. It is better to check all the games but I do not see a reason to assume that something was wrong and if you have limited time to check it is logical to check the extreme results and not the results in the middle. Uri
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.