Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Next Human vs Computer ratings list - I need opinions

Author: Ed Schröder

Date: 09:39:16 05/19/00

Go up one level in this thread


On May 19, 2000 at 10:32:44, Enrique Irazoqui wrote:

>On May 19, 2000 at 10:27:04, blass uri wrote:
>
>>On May 19, 2000 at 09:42:07, Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>>
>>>On May 19, 2000 at 09:37:19, Chris Carson wrote:
>>>
>>>>I am planning to publish an updated list list here with
>>>>all rated human vs computer results for 40/2 events.
>>>>
>>>>Please let me know your thoughts on the following:
>>>>
>>>>1.  Exclude Performance Rating when 3 or fewer games
>>>>    have been played by a program/hardware.
>>>
>>>I don't see why.
>>>
>>>>2.  Exclude forfiets and protest resignations (Dutch Championship),
>>>>    and games where computers lost due to hardware, IP failures,
>>>>    or operator error.
>>>
>>>I would definitely exclude forfeits and IP failures, but not the rest. In my
>>>opinion, this list is interesting if it reflects the real performance of
>>>programs in actual games. Hardware failures and operator's errors are part of
>>>how a program plays. Forfeits and IP failures are not.
>>>
>>>Enrique
>>
>>Do you really think that losing on time is part of how shredder4 plays?
>>
>>I do not agree.
>>I think that operator's error are not part of how a program plays and it is not
>>fair to include the game that shredder lost on time in a winning position when
>>the reason was not a bug in the program.
>>
>>Uri
>
>You are absolutely right. Then, among the problematic games I would count only
>the games lost because of hardware failure. By the way, are there any? I
>remember a Rebel-GM game, but Rebel was lost anyway before the machine started
>developing problems.

The latter is not true. The first crash was right after the first move out of
the opening book. In total the machine crashed 10 times during the Hoffman
game -> lots of time loss. Then the machine did not crash when it should
have crashed and played a blunder move showing a +2.xx score because the
processor became total crazy. The blunder move was of course not reproducable.
On that moment Hoffman had a very good position and with perfect play Hoffman
certainly would have won. But how can you be sure of perfect play? And what if
it had been the opposite? And what had Hoffman to do with problems of his
opponent?

I think forfeits and IP troubles (before the game, not during the game) are
the only reasonable exceptions.

Ed

>Enrique



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.