Author: Peter Skinner
Date: 15:29:23 02/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 27, 2005 at 18:12:48, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >The typical Uri Blass.... If Peter made an assumption without the complete games >and he put a 2400 elo as an initial value. It doesnt prove what a relative elo >is. Diep played 9 rounds. There are 9 games in it's "performance" rating. I didn't say what it's relative elo was. I simply stated that the average elo for the tournament was around 2400, and Diep _performed_ under that. In PERFORMANCE it was 11th, in actual standings it was 7th. Tied with two amateurs. > >Correction for the person who doesnt read: That is not my table. It is the >official table of Paderborn, Mr. Blass. The Skinner´s Table puts Diep in the >_11th_ place when it got the 7th. place. > >You simply dont see because you dont read. I read just fine, as can Uri. You obviously can't. I didn't state _anywhere_ that was the official table. I said it was the performance rating table. >The suggestion doesnt say anything about the range of 700elo points. >Knowing that Diepeveen and Skinner are not in harmony, the message might say >other thing. I pointed out several links that proves the Diep´s overall is not >under 2400 as it was said. I pointed out official results, not a personal table. Who cares what harmony me and Vincent are currently at. This was not personal. It was showing the performance rating of a single program over a 9 round tournament. You are the one that brought up the previous year's results. What do they have to do with the performance at this year's IPCCC? Absolutely nothing. Only that I was talking about one tournament, and you are trying to refute it with 4 tournament results. Are you sure you're not Vincent posting as Arturo? You sound the same. Nothing but excuses and useless data to cloud the issue. >>He meant 2005. I meant one tournament. >Because, you are alwaays in the area of suppositions and I dont know what the >real sense of the table was, I just put the Diep performane in the current >Tournament as well as over the year 2004. Who cares about last year? I was talking THIS YEAR'S EVENT. Can you simply not accept this? >PD: Only the moon can know what you tried to refute here. What are you trying to refute? Why bring up last year's data when it has _nothing_ to do with this year's event? It performed worse than 4 amateurs. Are you sure Diep should be classified as a "commercial"? Peter
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.