Author: Phil Dixon
Date: 16:41:15 07/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 1999 at 09:30:47, Harald Faber wrote:
>On July 13, 1999 at 09:25:22, Shep wrote:
>
>>>You astonish me on and on.
>>>AFTER the tourney you decide to continue the interrupted game or not, based on
>>>the ranking and effects a different result woud have???
>>
>>Yes. It is another "optimization". If no significance for the overall standings
>>can be expected from a (hypothetically) different result in an adjudicated game,
>>I see no point wasting another day finishing the game.
>
>Don't you think it may influence the pairings?
>
>>Just like I never watch the 3rd place playoff in soccer WCs. :)
>
>Ya, I know the winner takes it all...
>
>>>I know and that is why I set the time control either 40/120+g/60 or if not
>>>possible g/180.
>>
>>I usually prefer playing at these time controls, too, but the SC is an
>>exception. And this is also yet another remainder of the "old times", since e.g.
>>Rebel 9 had no "g/180" time control...
>
>I know. :-(
>
>>>>Yes, but as they always say, that is "not statistically significant". :)
>>>
>>>ONE may not be statistical relevant. BTW a 9 round-robin isn't either...
>>
>>Then again, what is? Not even SSDF... Or just about any tourney in any sports
>>category in the world, for that matter. ;-)
>
>I know but I didn't start the idea of statistical relevance.
>
>>>But if you adjust say 3 or more games for a program in the tourney the result
>>>can be VERY different.
>>
>>True. That's why I keep track of these adjudications ("adjustment" has a
>>connotation of biased influence, I think) in order to avoid them summing up to
>>be significant.
>
>? How? Next games are played until the total end?
>
>>>>where Rebel was up +3 against Genius and did not win (but this was a rapid
>>>>game).
>>>
>>>I know such strange games/evals.
>>
>>They used to be rare, but seem to be becoming more and more common since many
>>strong programs can now save a game which would have been dead lost 2 years ago.
>
>For example.
>
>>>Fine, finally we agree. :-)
>>
>>What a red letter day for our calendar! ;-))
>>---
>>Shep
>
>Did we ever disagree? I remember we agreed on the CM5k settings. :-)
These situations are why I depend on MY own analysis. I know how it is done. I
remember going through some analysis I had picked up on the Web where the
variation was supposed to be sound (?), playing through it I came upon a mate in
2. Supposedly a good line!! I examine other analysis and trust my own when it
comes to ratings, variation soundness, etc.
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.