Author: Günther Simon
Date: 12:22:41 08/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2001 at 09:37:13, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >On August 24, 2001 at 08:52:51, Mark Young wrote: > >>On August 24, 2001 at 07:58:08, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On August 24, 2001 at 07:51:16, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On August 24, 2001 at 07:29:21, Günther Simon wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 24, 2001 at 07:15:30, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 24, 2001 at 07:06:51, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Here are the results by >>>>>>>elostat program >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You can see that shredder is only 3th place micro based on the performance. >>>>>>>Shredder is the world Micro champion by definition but Tiger and Rebel had a >>>>>>>better performance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>1 Deep Junior 7 : 2745 228 281 9 88.9 % 2384 22.2 % >>>>>>>2 Quest (DeepFritz) : 2550 266 169 9 66.7 % 2430 44.4 % >>>>>>>3 Chess Tiger 14.6 Gambit Tiger : 2499 291 229 9 55.6 % 2461 22.2 % >>>>>>>4 Crafty 18.10X : 2467 291 165 9 55.6 % 2428 44.4 % >>>>>>>5 Rebel : 2466 291 229 9 55.6 % 2428 22.2 % >>>>>>>6 Shredder : 2466 266 249 9 66.7 % 2346 22.2 % >>>>>>>7 Goliath : 2421 291 165 9 55.6 % 2382 44.4 % >>>>>>>8 Gromit 3.9.5 : 2364 278 201 9 61.1 % 2285 33.3 % >>>>>>>9 Ferret : 2359 291 229 9 55.6 % 2320 22.2 >>>>>>>%10 Gandalf 5.0 : 2310 291 229 9 55.6 % 2271 22.2 >>>>>>>% >>>>>>>11 ParSOS : 2256 291 229 9 55.6 % 2217 22.2 % >>>>>>>12 Diep : 2227 165 291 9 44.4 % 2265 44.4 % >>>>>>>13 IsiChess X : 2166 201 278 9 38.9 % 2245 33.3 % >>>>>>>14 Tao : 2165 229 291 9 44.4 % 2203 22.2 % >>>>>>>15 Ruy Lopez : 2118 366 266 9 33.3 % 2238 0.0 % >>>>>>>16 Pharaon : 2082 169 266 9 33.3 % 2202 44.4 % >>>>>>>17 SpiderGirl : 2014 213 255 9 27.8 % 2180 33.3 % >>>>>>>18 XiNiX : 1724 400 108 9 5.6 % 2216 > > >LOOK AT THE ERROR MARGINS ! ELOstat is in perfect agreement with everything. > > > > 11.1 % >>>>>>> >>>>>>>congratulation also for the Deep Junior team for winning the event convincingly >>>>>>>when the difference from the second place is almost 200 elo and the hardware >>>>>>>explain less than 70 elo difference. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Uri >>>>>> >>>>>>I can add that I think that it may be a better idea to use elostat to decide >>>>>>about the world champion in the future. >>>>>> >>>>>>I know that a lot of people are going to disagree but it is my opinion. >>>>>>I prefer a complicated method that does more justive and not a simple method. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Sorry Uri - but this is really nonsens. >>>>>You cant use ELO-Stat on a Swiss Tournament with 9 rounds as >>>>>it is described by the author. ELO-Stat is designed to calculate >>>>>ratings out of a pool of unknown rated progs with a very very lot >>>>>of games. >>>>>Therefor if you take a closer look at your table you would see that >>>>>the error margin is at least 435!pts (Pharaon) and max 632!! (RuyLopez). >>>>>And would you really believe Parallel SOS to be at 2256? :)) >>>> >>>>The question is not which program is better. >>>>competitions of 9 rounds are not supposed to answer this question. >>>> >>>>The question is which program did better result. >>>>The elostat answer this question better than the ranking >>>> >>>>The rating is also based on average of 2300 if I remember corectly and should >>>>not be compared with humans. >>>> >>>> >>>>>You must be a strong Tigerfan to post this very unlike post, as it >>>>>is diametral to all your previous posts about stats?! >>>> >>>>I do not see contradiction with previous posts of myself. >>>> >>>>>(Btw hasnt Shredder won against Tiger or am I out of memory?) >>>> >>>>Yes >>>>Shredder won against tiger. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>I can add congratulations for crafty for being the best amatuer. >>>I here that Gromit won the title of the best amatuer and it is unfair because >>>Crafty was more than 100 elo better >>> >>>I know that Gromit beated Crafty in the last round but it does not change the >>>fact that Crafty was more than 100 elo better based on elostat. >>> >>>Uri >> >>A nine round Swiss tournament to determine the computer world championship in my >>mind makes the title world champion a joke. This is nothing more then another >>computer chess tournament. To draw any conclusions from this one tournament and >>then declare the winner to be the world champion makes me sick. If the title of >>computer world champion means the winner is declared the strongest computer >>program. > >It's just the same with human tournaments. The world champion is determined as >the winner of a special tournament. > >That's an exciting and interesting way to determine the champion and I seriously >can't see what's wrong with this. > >Defining the winner by some utility like ELOstat for a tourney is ridiculous >anyway because you need at least 200 or more games to get reasonable error >margins. So, the Maastricht ranking is certainly in perfect agreement with >ELOstat statistics for this tourney provided you account for the error margins >(what you have to do if you want to be kind of "scientific"). > >Uli Hi Uli, I told the exact range of error margins from Min. to Max. case in this table in my first post but it seems it was ignored. Was is in Comet B37 im Vergleich zum Vorgänger eigentlich noch geändert worden - konnte mich in letzter Zeit nicht mehr so informieren... Günther
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.