Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Dieps 700 elo-book in action:

Author: Arturo Ochoa

Date: 16:26:31 02/27/05

Go up one level in this thread


On February 27, 2005 at 18:29:23, Peter Skinner wrote:

>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.

The Official Table of teh Tournament says other thing. Your table is useless.


>>
>>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.
>

I showed official results while you showed a table that doesnt prove your point.

>>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.

Really strange that the example is always directed to Diep in a particular style
to "show" that it did not reach 2400 elo based on your assumptions.

>
>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.

Of course, I show with official result that yoour table is not useful.

>
>Are you sure you're not Vincent posting as Arturo? You sound the same. Nothing
>but excuses and useless data to cloud the issue.
>

I am Arturo Ochoa, maybe you are Uri Blass?!  :)))) Come on, such kind of
accussations is really stupid.

>>>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?

I am not refuting or accepting anything, I am showing that your table is useless
because The official Table of the Tournament shows other thing.

>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"?
>

The point is not the perfomance but your false eleventh place in the Table.

Arturo.-



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.