Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 10:10:16 05/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2000 at 10:39:02, blass uri 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. > >I remember that Ed believe that Rebel did not lose the game because of hardware >problems but we will never know. At first I strongly felt not to count this game for reasons Enrique pointed out to have an accurate list as possible. When going through the game later I changed my mind because of the impressive play of Hoffman who had a technical won position and I noticed that on a good machine Rebel most probably (>90%) would have come in the same trouble. I now believe these kind of things are a non-issue. Losing on time is an essential part of the game of chess and so is the health condition of humans and computers. Ed >I did not analyze the relevant game but even if Rebel got a bad position not >because of hardware problems it is still possible that Rebel could save a draw >out of the bad position without hardware problems(remember that Rebel saved a >draw from a lost position against smyslov). > >Uri >> >>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.