Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 20:29:10 05/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2000 at 22:35:51, Chris Carson wrote: >Peter, > >I am leaning towards not counting the forfeit (check spelling). I >think there might be a rule on that. I am checking, but please take >a look also. > >The Bosboom game is more difficult. It would count for a human >player and give an accurate measure of strength. This game looses >significance as more games are played. I am reconsidering, however, >Bosboom chose to play and chose to quit. That is a measure of >strength. No, it's just an indication that he objected to Fritz's participation. > I would like more opinions on this, Bosboom has a lot >of short games in this tournament, I am sure the human opponents will >get all the points they are entitled to. I have had opponents (rated >higher than myself) that quit after a few moves because they were upset >playing a lower rated person. I got the points. I have had opponents >that drug the game out to checkmate even when the game was over long >before that. > >Please let me know your rational for not including the game. I guess I view it from a purely scientific perspective. To me, the goal should be to compute a performance rating that measures Fritz's playing strength as accurately as possible. Bosboom resigned in protest on move 4, in a perfectly playable position, and so the result of that game simply tells us nothing about Fritz's playing strength. Imagine a scientist conducting a long series of experiments, but one day he fails to setup his equipment properly and his test doesn't run. Should this failed test be counted in his results? Of course not, it is discarded as worthless. --Peter
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.