Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:11:14 01/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2000 at 08:21:18, Bertil Eklund wrote: >On January 06, 2000 at 17:07:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 06, 2000 at 10:20:15, Graham Laight wrote: >> >>>On January 06, 2000 at 10:12:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>I don't dismiss it out of hand. But if I have a question about the >>>>effectiveness of brain surgery, I ask the _surgeon_ and not the _patient_. >>>>They have two entirely different perspectives. The patient recovers fully. >>>>He considers this procedure a revolution. The doctor knows that only one of >>>>20 will recover. He considers it terribly risky. Who is right? >>>> >>>>Chess program 'users' have one perspective from playing the programs. The >>>>authors have a completely different one, knowing all the things that are >>>>missing, all the things the program does poorly, all the things it gets >>>>into trouble with... >>>> >>>>Which perspective seems most accurate? The user of a black box, or the person >>>>that 'filled' the black box? >>> >>>Or the impartial evaluator of the black box? >> >> >>That is the point. You can _not_ evaluate the black box. You can only evaluate >>the results. The brain surgery worked. You consider it wonderful. Only the >>doctor knows all the difficulties he had during the surgery, how close he came >>to losing the patient, etc. Because the doctor sees _inside_ the black box. >> >>That is why 'impartial evaluation' is not easy until we simply have a lot of GM >>games to go on. At present we don't. My view from inside the black box shows >>thousands of problem areas that need work. It may be that my view is wrong, if >>and only if the black box can produce results against GM players that I don't >>expect. The easy way out of this is to wait. We are getting data. We know for >>sure that Rebel isn't going to have a 2700 TPR based on games so far, so the >>2700 number for Tiger on the SSDF is grossly overinflated. As Ed said, and as I >>have said many times, I would consider a TPR of 2500 a remarkable result. And >>that isn't good enough to make a GM. > >Over and over again, this is not TPR it´s MPR, what are you going to do repeat >this 500 times and it´s true. Ok this seems to work here on a lot of persons but >it´s two different things. > >Bertil And your point would be? MPR or TPR doesn't mean a thing. "PR" does. A pure performance rating. It doesn't matter whether it comes from a match, from a single tournament, or computed from a set of consecutive games. The calculation is identical in all three cases, the result is interpreted the same way. Match or Tournament is irrelevant in this context. The term "performance rating" is what is important. However it is derived. In this case, from a consecutive series of games... It really isn't two different things at all. And the rebel result isn't really a MPR either, because in a match, the two opponents play multiple games. This is _far_ closer to a tournament than a match, since each opponent for Rebel is different. IMHO of course.
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.