Author: Bernhard Bauer
Date: 01:01:28 09/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
From Andreas´ homepage computer : Celeron 500 192 MB os : Windows 98 level : game in 5 minutes hash : about 32 MB for one engine endgame : Nalimov all 3 - 4 man / Edward all 3 - 4 man pondering: off So it´s just another 5 min poff (ponder off) tournament. You may do your statistics, but ... Kind regards Bernhard On September 04, 2001 at 12:55:37, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 04, 2001 at 12:32:25, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: > >>On September 04, 2001 at 10:59:24, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On September 04, 2001 at 09:17:30, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >>> >>>>On September 04, 2001 at 04:36:58, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 04, 2001 at 04:13:47, Chris Taylor wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On September 04, 2001 at 02:26:23, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Bob has obviously abandoned 2 weeks version cycle, which is good!! I prefer >>>>>>>to get new version, when it's really better than old. E.g. in Junior's case >>>>>>>after 1,5 years! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Jouni >>>>>> >>>>>>I have a feeling there will be more versions! >>>>>>If I had a large amount of money, and the betting shop was a tad nearer. I >>>>>>would, have a flutter. But then again, I am not a betting man? >>>>>> >>>>>>In auto232 matches I have 18.10 from bob's site doing rather well. It seems to >>>>>>be getteing stronger with each release. >>>>>> >>>>>I am not so sure. Look at this rating list from Herrmann: >>>>> >>>>>Crafty 17.14 2563 300 259 18 23 268.0 89.3 2207 >>>>>Crafty 18.10 2561 372 309 43 20 330.5 88.8 2212 >>>>>Crafty 17.12 2516 192 149 27 16 162.5 84.6 2225 >>>>>Crafty 18.07 2492 336 261 41 34 281.5 83.8 2211 >>>>> >>>>>Only sure thing is, that 18.7 was weak... >>>> >>>>Sure ??? Are you kidding ? Look at the error bars. >>>>These results are very well compatible with the statement that Crafty 18.07 is >>>>the strongest version. The statistics is far too poor to say anything. >>>>Uli >>> >>>No >>> >>>2563-23>2492+41 so it seems clear that 17.14 is better than 18.07 even in the >>>optimistic assumption for 18.07 and the passimistic assumption for 17.14 >> >>The numbers, which you are quoting, are not the error bars but the number of >>games with "=" and "-" result,( if I got this right from Andreas' page). > >You are right here. > >> >>I think that the error bars for 200 - 300 games (like above) are still of the >>order 60 - 70 ELO. It seems that Andreas has not given them. >>With this assumption I obtain >>2492 + 60 > 2563 - 60 >> >>Okay ? > >The average number of games is 300 for every program. > >Based on the ssdf list Gambittiger has similiar number of games and the error >bar of it is only 40 and 43 elo so I guess you need to do something like >2492+40>2563-40 but it is not exactly correct to do it. > >I have no time to think how to explain it now but it is more correct to >calculate 40*(2^0.5)<60 to evaluate the error in the difference between 2 >programs when 40 is the biggest error in one of them with 95% confidence and in >this case we get significant difference. > >Uri
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.