Author: Tony Werten
Date: 01:51:14 03/01/05
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. I'll give it 1 shot. Diep played under the average performance elo rating. Correct. That means that whatever you pick as average starting elo, Diep played under that. You picked 2400 and from that you conclude: Diep is under 2400. You also could have picked 3000, and state that Diep (although a little under 3000) is still at super GM level. Both statements have 1 thing in common: They're rather pointless. Cheers, Tony > >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.