Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 10:02:48 05/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2000 at 12:47:11, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >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. I have a great arbiter but with a lousy memory :-)) What I have described below happened, the machine crashed about 10 times. Not every time I have told you because the clock was ticking and ticking. Ed (GM) (great memory) >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.