Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 12:37:25 05/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2000 at 12:50:31, Ed Schröder wrote: >On May 19, 2000 at 12:28:46, blass uri wrote: > >>On May 19, 2000 at 12:12:02, Ed Schröder 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. >>> >>>Then add the game Rebel-Shredder, Rebel-Hoffman etc, etc to the exception list. >>>The list will soon become endless. Forfeits and IP failures are exceptions which >>>are okay IMO. >>> >>>Rebel-Hoffman: hardware failure -> counts. >>>Rebel-Shredder: operator troubles -> counts. >> >>This was not a computer-human game and the list was about computer-human games. > >I know, but it could have happened in human-comp game. The argument itself >is valid. > >>>Shredder lost on time -> counts. >>>Rebel-GM Ralf Akesson lost on time -> counts. >>> >>>Ed >> >>I suggest to do two lists(one with the exception and another list without the >>exceptions). >> >>I think that the list without counting the exceptions gives a better picture >>about the level of programs. > >And who is going to decide if a game is valid to count? We all have >different opinions. Some say: don't count Rebel-Hoffman, others say >count it. > >Ed That's why the best solution is to count all of the games that are played, no matter what. :-) This won't give a perfect list for everybody's needs, but it's a known standard, and people can "go from there", so to speak. Dave
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.