Author: Martin Schubert
Date: 03:23:18 02/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 2000 at 05:16:48, Dann Corbit wrote: >ELO is self adjusting. > >Programs that learn will rise in ELO. > >Programs that repeat the same mistakes will drop in ELO. > >This is as it should be. Just like a human who learns. They are not static in >ability either. Each game is a pinpoint in the sea of data. After each >measurement, both pinpoints are disturbed. Neither sits where it was before. > >It could well be said that ELO tells us nothing about a contest between machines >A and B of well-known ELO a-priori. > >It only tells us what a probable outcome should be. Not what will be. That's right. But is had been said that ELO's of old programs one old machines are more reliable because with these programes have been played more games. This is an statistical argument. After the Cadaques-Tournament you could read statistics of the tournament with confindence intervalls etc. My question: how can you calculate confindence intervalls without any statistical conditions to hold?
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.