Author: Alberto Rezza
Date: 10:50:04 05/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
>>Sure, but if the purpose of this rating list is to give us an idea of the >>strength of programs, I would discard games that we know are meaningless, like >>the 2 forfeits of Fritz in Holland and this Shredder game. The key word, to me, >>is "meaning", and this game has none. The list may be more complicated, but also >>more accurate. > >What about the GM's wife example? The computer won or lost? Or drop the >game? You never get a perfect system. Why not stick to the FIDE rule? >If you lose on time you have lost whatever happened. 2 hurrays, not 3 >as 3 is too much. Suppose computers were allowed to play in tournaments and get ratings, titles, etc. Human players would expect a program to enter the tournament with the correct rating, since their own rating change would depend on it. Now imagine I write a program and have it play in some tournaments. It gains a rating of, say, 2200. Then I realize that my operator is making far too many mistakes, and I decide to operate the program myself in the next event. No more operator mistakes, suddenly my program is playing at the 2500 level. Every human player starts to protest, and with good reason... No, operator error should definitely be left out of any program's rating. Alberto
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.