Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 06:54:52 02/19/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2005 at 04:22:06, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 19, 2005 at 02:47:39, Arturo Ochoa 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. >> >>Incorrect. I means, that Diep wont 7 games because of the game of the engine and >>3 games because of the book. Learn to read. :)))) > >It is not logical that diep with your book won every game in your test so I >assumed that you ignored games that it lost. > >If it really won every game in your tests then something is not serious in your >test because in tournament it does not win every game. > >> >>> >>>Of course even if we know x it cannot mean nothing about rating points because >>>the condition of your testing have to be different than the condition in the >>>tournament. >> >>This is not relevant to the point. The point is how points the book gave and how >>it can mean in elo points. Useless to explain you and you understand anything. > >I guess now that you probably meant that if Diep score x/10 in with book then it >could score x-3/10 without your book and x=10 was only an example. > >10/10 was unrealistic in the first place so it cause the confusion. > >I think that difference of 3/10 against the same opponents mean an estimate of >240 rating points. > >I got this estimate by the following assumption. > >Assume you have equal opponents >you score 5/10 against them >Your book increase the score to 8/10 > >8-2 against equal opponents is translated to estimate of 240 elo(If I beat 8-2 >an opponent that is 240 elo weaker in Israel than the difference in rating >between me and my opponent is still 240) >> >> >>> >>>In tournaments part of the opponents are not passive target and it is possible >>>that your plan against version X does not work for the simple reason that the >>>author upgraded to version X+1. >> >>This is not relevant. In Tournament, a direct win has always happened. What is >>your point ??????? > >My point was that testing at home against passive opponents cannot tell you a >good estimate to the number of points that you can earn. >You need to test against some unknown opponents to get a better estimate. > >In second thought I do not know how you test so it is possible that you used >also testing against unknown opponents(to you) in order to get an estimate. >> >>> >>>Not easy to predict how many prepared direct wins you will lose because of that. >> >>I have never lost a direct wint. What kind of absurd idea are you meaning? > >I think that my english was not good here. > >I meant drawing or losing a game against version X+1 when based on your >preperation you could win it against version X. > >Uri Dont you understand what a direct win by book means?
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.