Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 05:46:26 11/07/97
Go up one level in this thread
On November 07, 1997 at 05:58:13, Chris Whittington wrote: >>Now you can >>- call me 'Andreas in wonderland' again (Chris Whittington) :) or >Ok, but it's a compliment. You can find interesting stuff there :) >>- ask questions about certain probabilities (all others). > >Why not include Swiss into the algorithm ? Er, is this Chris? :) >Or if not: > >Take the WMCCC results. Make an ELO grading of all the programs from the >relative results they have against each other. >Use this as your win/lose probability. >Use the draw chances as of WMCCC It's a dilemma. The SSDF would give better estimates, but only for older versions with different books. WMCCC gives unreliable estimates of the relative strengths but for recent versions. In fact the only thing important is that the relative strengths are distributed like in an average tournament. Given the programs at the latest tournament, an SSDF based estimation would be most reliable, I believe. It doesn't all have to be very exact of course, just realistic. What would you guess are the chances that Hiarcs would end in the top 3? Personally I wouldn't be suprised if it only happened 50% of the time. >Run Andreas in Wonderland and tell us how the results compare to the >'actual' result. ie. how much is the 'actual' result just a random >occurence within the large set of results ..... ? >How does this relate to number of rounds ..... ? >Chris through the looking glass Regards, Bas Hamstra.
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.