Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 01:09:54 10/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 28, 1999 at 23:47:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 28, 1999 at 13:49:18, Tony Hedlund wrote: > >>On October 28, 1999 at 09:31:22, Harald Faber wrote: >> >>>On October 28, 1999 at 08:44:50, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>> >>>>>I don't until there is proof. >>>>>A) CM wasn't tested on P90 so there is no comparison and no evidence that Tiger >>>>>is also best on MMX200 or K6-450 as Rebel9 was best on P90 before but wasn't on >>>>>MMX200. So to conclude from the P90 result that Tiger will also be best on >>>>>faster machines is too early and probably wrong. >>>>>B) I don't like all that Tiger-hype since most of the games and results are not >>>>>tournament games. >>>> >>>>?Hype? is propaganda based on smoke and this is not what I am doing. We have >>>>quite outstanding results coming from several sources. Some results at 40/2, >>>>some at 60/30, and so far all seem to indicate that Tiger is the strongest in >>>>comp-comp. Results are facts, no hype. You may or may not like them, but your >>>>choice of the word ?hype? is most unfortunate. >>> >>>You can bury me for the choice of that word if you want to, I don't mind. :-) >>> >>>Show me the tournament results. How many, who played them on which hardware >>>(2PCs?)? >>> >>>>>Concerning TIger/K6-450 vs Prog X/P90 I think it is really nonsense to play such >>>>>a match, no matter if Prog X has an almost safe rating. >>>>>Take a class-a soccer team, let's call it team A, playing versus a team of the >>>>>lowest regional class (call it Z). Team A wins 10-0. Let another team out of the >>>>>class-a play against Z, call it team B. B wins 12-0. Would you say that team B >>>>>is better/stronger than team A? I would never say that until I have more results >>>>>and games within class-a. And you shouldn't say that too. >>>> >>>>SSDF people explained this very many times already. They might do it again in >>>>this thread. >>>> >>>>Enrique >>> >>>I know and I was referring to that most significant argument. If a member >>>doesn't have 2 K6-450 or 1xK6-450+1xMMX200 but only K6-450+P90, better leave >>>playing programs against each other on these 2 machines. >> >>As Enrique wrote, we have explained this so many times before it's sad to go >>down that road again. >> >>It doesn't matter which ELO the opponents to a new entrance have. We can play >>200 Tiger 12 AMD K6-2 450 games against P90-programs, or we can play 200 games >>against AMD K6-2 450 programs. We will get approx. the same ELO. It's in the >>system made by Arpad Elo. >> >>Tony > > >Have you checked this with any statistical measures? I typically find that >given two otherwise equal programs, one advantage of some sort (faster machine, >bigger hash, better book, etc) tends to exaggerate the rating produced by the >Elo system. One example is doubling the cpu speed seems to make a program some >70 points stronger in computer vs computer, but it does _not_ have that effect >in computer vs human games... In other words, the Elo can be somewhat skewed >without it being intentional. Hallo! Any proof for this, except for a gut-feeling!? Bertil SSDF
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.