Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 16:28:51 02/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 27, 2005 at 18:54:54, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 27, 2005 at 18:12:48, Arturo Ochoa wrote: > >>On February 27, 2005 at 17:54:40, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On February 27, 2005 at 17:33:02, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >>> >>>>On February 27, 2005 at 14:06:58, Peter Skinner wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 27, 2005 at 07:17:44, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Well, Vincent said that if an engine play Elo 3000 than the book is giving in >>>>>>these tournaments 700 points and the program is 2300 Elo strong. >>>>>> >>>>>>I do not think Diep is playing Elo 3000 so the Vincent's rule cannot be used. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sandro >>>>> >>>>>Diep wasn't even playing at a 2400 level at the IPCCC. >>>>> >>>>>With all the games (well all games that were actually posted) from the event and >>>>>using a start value of 2400, Diep scored: >>>>> >>>>>Program Elo + - Games Score Av.Op. Draws >>>>> >>>>> 1 Hydra : 2810 239 220 9 88.9 % 2449 22.2 >>>>>% >>>>> 2 Shredder : 2715 320 296 9 83.3 % 2436 11.1 >>>>>% >>>>> 3 Gandalf : 2566 214 205 9 61.1 % 2488 33.3 >>>>>% >>>>> 4 Spike : 2499 267 247 9 61.1 % 2420 11.1 >>>>>% >>>>> 5 Nexus : 2455 292 292 7 50.0 % 2455 14.3 >>>>>% >>>>> 6 Ikarus : 2447 220 220 7 50.0 % 2447 42.9 >>>>>% >>>>> 7 Anaconda : 2436 207 207 9 50.0 % 2436 33.3 >>>>>% >>>>> 8 Jonny : 2428 207 207 9 50.0 % 2428 33.3 >>>>>% >>>>> 9 SOS : 2418 207 207 9 50.0 % 2418 33.3 >>>>>% >>>>> 10 The Baron : 2417 187 183 9 55.6 % 2378 44.4 >>>>>% >>>>> 11 Diep : 2397 187 183 9 55.6 % 2358 44.4 >>>>>% >>>>> 12 Neurologic : 2218 177 194 8 37.5 % 2307 50.0 >>>>>% >>>>> 13 Patzer : 2208 177 195 9 33.3 % 2329 44.4 >>>>>% >>>>> 14 Quark : 2169 205 229 9 27.8 % 2335 33.3 >>>>>% >>>>> 15 IsiChess : 2150 248 286 8 25.0 % 2341 25.0 >>>>>% >>>>> 16 Matador : 2041 173 291 9 16.7 % 2321 33.3 >>>>>% >>>> >>>>Rg. Titel Name Pkte Wtg. >>>>1 Hydra 8 44½ >>>>2 Shredder 7½ 43 >>>>3 Gandalf 5½ 47 >>>>4 Spike 5½ 42½ >>>>5 Ikarus 5 42 >>>>6 The Baron 5 39 >>>>7 Diep 5 37 >>>>8 Anaconda 4½ 44 >>>>9 SOS 4½ 43 >>>>10 Nexus 4½ 43 >>>>11 Johnny 4½ 43 >>>>12 Patzer 3 35½ >>>>13 Neurologic 3 34 >>>>14 Isichess 2½ 38½ >>>>15 Quark 2½ 36 >>>>16 Matador 1½ 36 >>>> >>>>http://wwwcs.upb.de/~IPCCC/IPCCC2005/r3.HTM >>>>According to the Official Standing Table of teh Tournament, Diep was seventh and >>>>not eleventh as you put in your table. >>> >>>The table is not officical standing table but performance table based on the >>>event and the assumption that the average rating is 2400 so I do not see the >>>problem with it. >>> >>>Diep played relatively weaker opponents(for example did not play hydra) so the 5 >>>that it scored may be considered as worse than 4.5 that scored other programs. >>> >>>> >>>>About your point, Diep was: >>>> >>>>1) 6th. in Paderborn 2004: http://wwwcs.upb.de/~IPCCC/IPCCC2004/ranking.html >>>>2) 4th. in 4th International CSVN Tournament: >>>>http://www.computerschaak.nl/ict4tour.html >>>>3) 3rd. in 12th World Computer Chess Championship 2004: >>>>http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/games/results.html >>>>4) 1st. in Dutch Open 2004: http://www.computerschaak.nl/docc04.html. >>>> >>>>They are all the Official Tables and they don´t say that Diep was under 2400 >>>>Elo. >>> >>>I agree that there is no proof for rating under 2400 >>> >>>Peter made the assumption that the average rating of the field is 2400 and the >>>only thing that I can say is that we do not know the average rating of the >>>field. >>> >>>> I do not see that your table is proving anything. >>> >> >>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. >> >>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. > >The skinner table is performance table and not the official table. > >> >>You simply dont see because you dont read. > >I have no problem of reading. >I do not confuse between official table and performance table. >They are different. > Simply, it is not valid because how he supposed the 2400 elo for this table? It is just useless. >I claimed nothing here about the value of book but only responded to your claim: >"Diep was seventh and not eleventh as you put in your table." > > >There is nothing wrong with performance table and there is nothing wrong with >official table. >They are different tables. > >Uri I dont see that the table says anything about the elo performance in numbers. I can put 2000 or 2800 as the initial value and it doesnt prove anything.
This page took 0.01 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.