Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 12:06:43 05/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2000 at 13:50:04, Alberto Rezza wrote: >>>Sure, but if the purpose of this rating list is to give us an idea of the >>>strength of programs, I would discard games that we know are meaningless, like >>>the 2 forfeits of Fritz in Holland and this Shredder game. The key word, to me, >>>is "meaning", and this game has none. The list may be more complicated, but also >>>more accurate. >> >>What about the GM's wife example? The computer won or lost? Or drop the >>game? You never get a perfect system. Why not stick to the FIDE rule? >>If you lose on time you have lost whatever happened. 2 hurrays, not 3 >>as 3 is too much. > >Suppose computers were allowed to play in tournaments and get ratings, titles, >etc. Human players would expect a program to enter the tournament with the >correct rating, since their own rating change would depend on it. > >Now imagine I write a program and have it play in some tournaments. It gains a >rating of, say, 2200. Then I realize that my operator is making far too many >mistakes, and I decide to operate the program myself in the next event. No more >operator mistakes, suddenly my program is playing at the 2500 level. Every human >player starts to protest, and with good reason... > >No, operator error should definitely be left out of any program's rating. Humans can do the same. Both cases do not happen in practice. Ed >Alberto
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.