Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:15:16 04/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2000 at 12:16:05, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On April 24, 2000 at 09:35:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 24, 2000 at 03:45:50, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>On April 24, 2000 at 00:13:04, Pete Galati wrote: >>> >>>>That's only your take on the matter, read this post, Bob sums up the situation >>>>very well, but you don't appear to have a good grasp on it from what I can tell >>>> >>>>http://site2936.dellhost.com/forums/1/message.shtml?107372 >>>> >>>>Pete >>> >>>Er, Christophe might not have a good grasp of the situation, but why are you >>>assuming that Bob does? >>> >>>-Tom >> >> >>Perhaps because I (and a couple of others) mentioned _real_ cases of where >>programs catch up to (and pass) their opposition as time controls are lengthened >>or shortened??? > >I'm sure a number of _real_ cases can be found where the results of a blitz >match accurately predict the results of a standard match. You can't disprove one >side by proving the other side. > >-Tom You can prove that blitz ratings are _not_ good predictors for standard ratings in every case. And _that_ was the issue. Bertil mentioned Genius and Nimzo as two cases. Ed added Rebel as a third. I had already added crafty as the first name mentioned... So I don't care if, on some occasions, a blitz rating does predict a standard rating. I care more about on some occasions, a blitz rating does _not_ predict a standard rating. That last case is more than enough... and there is ample proof to prove it for some programs... enough said...
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.