Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 09:47:11 05/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2000 at 12:39:16, Ed Schröder wrote: >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. Either you are wrong or you have a lousy arbiter. As I remember it, the first crash happened immediately before the first time control, when Rebel was computing move 39 or 40 in a lost position. About whether we should count games with hardware failures, I answered you in another post. Enrique > 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.