Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 03:58:10 05/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 11, 2000 at 06:06:54, Chessfun wrote: >On May 11, 2000 at 05:01:25, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >>On May 11, 2000 at 01:10:51, Chessfun wrote: > > >Didn't you just cover this in the other post. >Well I guess this deserves a separate single post.? Maybe not, but you finally managed to answer the question. >Correct. The moves were and are within the evals. >But as can be seen it is posted as a question since I know something >is wrong. It is not possible to play Nunn at given time X then replay >the same way and get a difference of 15-5 - 9-11. So something must >be wrong but at that point I wasn't sure what and I assumed I would >receive suggestions as to what the problem could be. Sounds reasonable, except that it is possible to get very different results. Even though it is very unlikely to achieve such a difference. >The rerun proofed the score of the original score. This is my only problem so far. It doesn't prove anything, it suggests. Proving is something entirely different. It's not just semantics, or an attempt to instigate a quarrel. >The moves in the 11-9 games were within F6 evals. But the depths of >those moves were not as deep as they should have been given the same >time for the move in analysis. This as stated elsewhere was discovered >by Uri as being the case for Crafty at 25/0. It was at that point that >this was discovered and since I have made no posts on the subject since >that time so there is no post where it is stated. Thank you, was it that difficult? >If you believe Crafty can win 5/0 Nunn 1 against F6 then have someone >play the match and you will see that infact F6 wins easily. I don't really care about the result itself, my main concern is the fairness of the conclusions you make on behalf of your test. This includes possible errors of course. Sincerely, Mogens
This page took 0 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.