Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 12:39:41 04/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2000 at 14:15:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. So you got a list of people who don't care for blitz matches. Maybe they have some anecdotal evidence showing that blitz matches are useless. But has anything seriously been done to prove this? Experiments have shown that computer-computer match results can swing wildly, even if you play 100 games. So if you really want to prove that blitz match results are useless, it seems to me that you would have to play two matches of at least 100 games each between two programs. And that would just prove that the blitz results are useless for _those two programs playing against each other_. It would take a tremendous amount of effort to prove that blitz results are useless in general, even if you only take the top dozen or so programs into consideration. >enough said... You're not allowed to end discussions here. -Tom
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.