Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:12:46 04/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2000 at 15:39:41, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >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 Who said "blitz matches are _useless_???" I said "blitz matches do not show how the same two programs will do at longer time controls." Care to join the right conversation? And I can certainly end a discussion here from my end...
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.