Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:56:26 01/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2000 at 13:43:02, Chris Carson wrote: >On January 07, 2000 at 13:11:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. > >Bob, > >Please correct me if I am wrong. :) > >USCF, FIDE, and PCA will not accept match results to establish >a rating. I think that it must be tournament to establish, then I think >they will use match play results only in combination with tournament >results. I am not sure. The USCF will use match results (with a 3rd party TD the last time I checked) to rate someone or adjust their rating. Whether they will use only match games or not is something I don't know. Obviously FIDE does, since they rate the WCC games and the end of that is always a match. In years past it was 100% match play. > >At least that is what I was told when I established my USCF rating. :) >BTW, for me at least, my match results were 100 points below my tournament >results (the club players watched me play and then exploited my weakness). >USCF also gave the same reasons I have stated when I asked them why. It >may have changed, my rating was established in 1988 (and has fluctuated). > >I would be very interested if anyone can establish a rating using only >match play events. I know who I will go pick on. I have a much lower >rating, but I am that persons nemisis. :) > I suspect that USCF is more careful now, as there was a lot of fraud in years past doing this. Win a tournament, lose a match, sandbag your rating. >In my opinion, if I played a match with a program, noone would consider >that a fair estimate of that programs strength, however, if I were in >a rated tournament, then my rating would be factored into the ELO >formula and would be a valid part of the TPR for that program. IMHO. > >If I am correct then there is a difference. If I am incorrect, >well thanks for correcting me. :) > >Best Regards, >Chris Carson Sure... but what Ed is doing is not a 'match'. It is not playing the same opponent a bunch of games... it is very much like a tournament, with a long delay between rounds...
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.