Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Crafty 17.10 not that strong

Author: Bruce Moreland

Date: 19:18:36 04/24/00

Go up one level in this thread


On April 24, 2000 at 18:58:41, Tom Kerrigan wrote:

>On April 24, 2000 at 16:12:46, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>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...
>
>My apologies. I thought you could make the logical "leap of faith" and tack on
>the necessary "... for predicting performance at longer time controls."
>
>-Tom

I love these back and forth threads.  Two guys sharing viewpoints in an
atmosphere of mutual respect and admiration.

bruce




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.