Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 23:51:31 02/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2005 at 02:39:34, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 19, 2005 at 01:40:16, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>On February 18, 2005 at 19:19:31, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On February 18, 2005 at 18:52:58, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >>> >>>>On February 18, 2005 at 18:12:18, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 18, 2005 at 13:29:56, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>Yes but what is "help a lot"? >>>>>> >>>>>>Look the answer: 30% of the total score reached by Diep in testings and 25% of >>>>>>the total score reached by Zappa in private tests. The books was responsible of >>>>>>30% and 25% of the score reached for every mentioned engine. >>>>> >>>>>I'm not quite sure what that means actually. >>>>> >>>>>If your score is 20% and you improve that by 30% you score will be 26% which is >>>>>a rating increase of 59 Elo. >>>>> >>>>>If the score improves 30% from 50% to 65% it's a 107 Elo. >>>>> >>>>>If the score improves by 30% from 35% to 65% it's 240 Elo. >>>>> >>>>>If the score improves by 30% from 60% to 90% it's 320 Elo. >>>>> >>>>>-S. >>>> >>>>These assumptions are absolutely wrong. It is a common problem in this Forum of >>>>asserting things that I have not said. >>>> >>>>"Look the answer: 30% of the total score reached by Diep in testings and 25% of >>>>the total score reached by Zappa in private tests. The books was responsible of >>>>30% and 25% of the score reached for every mentioned engine. >>>>I'm not quite sure what that means actually." >>>> >>>>Example: If Diep played 10 games, and it won 10 games, 3 games were because of >>>>the book. Do you understand? A direct win because of the book. >>>> >>>>AO-- >>> >>>It means that diep scored 10/x in your testing with book when 7/x was without >>>book when x is unknown. >> >>No, not necessarely. >> >>We weed to define what one means to the book first. >>It could be thanks to the book even if the program does not come out of the >>opening with a winning advantage: i.e. a small plus but the program play very >>well out of that position. >>If the program got a position that handles very well with book x, than book x >>did very well and has part of the win merit. > > >I agree >I did not say "3 direct wins out of book" >I know that: >1)it can be earning draw instead of loss in some cases >2)I did not translate direct wins out of book to winning position and I assumed >that the poster include also cases that the position out of book was not winning >but the program knew to play it better than the opponents and getting that type >of position was planned so the wins were result of book. > >Uri More incorrections. It seems to that you mathematics are failing everywhere. How can I explain you?
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.