Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 08:01:32 02/19/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2005 at 10:28:52, Sune Fischer wrote: >On February 19, 2005 at 09:53:31, Arturo Ochoa wrote: > >>On February 19, 2005 at 03:56:57, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On February 19, 2005 at 03:41:05, Sune Fischer wrote: >>> >>>>On February 18, 2005 at 18:52:58, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >>>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>I'm just explaining that you can't translate that to an Elo number without >>>>knowing how many games there were in total. >>> >>>Correction, it's not the number of games that's important, it's the percentage. >>> >>>Let's assume you played equal opponents so the score went from 45% to 65%. >>> >>>This would give about 140 Elo. >>> >>>-S. >> >> >>I repeated twice my explanation, if you dont understand it. It is not my >>problem. > >You don't want to tell me your results that's fine, but I hope you realize that >claiming 10 of 10 is nonsense. > It is an idiocy to accuse somebody of saying somthing. If you had read carefully, the 10-10 was an example to show easily the result of 30%. However, you dont read simply. That is nothing that I can do with that. AO.
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.