Author: Jeff Lischer
Date: 14:37:56 08/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2001 at 14:10:11, Dann Corbit wrote: > >With the number of games played, the ELO figures are nearly MEANINGLESS. > >The error bars will mean that a program from amongh the weakest could really be >the strongest. > >With +/- 200 ELO for each program (even with one standard deviation) you can see >how the figures could easily be shaken up. > >You can calculate a TPR and all that. But the significance of the ELO figures >is moot. Yes the Elo figures are almost meaningless because of the uncertainties, but I don't think we are asking are these the correct Elo ratings. What we are trying to figure out is what is the best measure of true performance at the tournament? Are these Elo/TPR figures the best indication of performance or is there some other measure that would be better? It seems to me that these Elo figures are a better measure of performance than the raw score obtained, but I'm not sure about that. The comment about how tournament strategy can affect the outcome is a complicating factor.
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.