Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:12:43 05/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2000 at 14:09:57, Fernando Villegas wrote: >On May 19, 2000 at 12:33:26, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>On May 19, 2000 at 12:27:41, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On May 19, 2000 at 12:13:44, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>> >>>>On May 19, 2000 at 12:04:05, Chris Carson wrote: >>>> >>>>>The only loss due to HW was the Reb-Cen Hoffman. >>>>> >>>>>How do I justify removing games for Shredder and >>>>>Junior due to operator error and IP failure (which >>>>>I think should be removed from the TPR, but listed >>>>>in the results) but not the HW failure for Rebel? >>>>>It may be a won position for Hoffman, it was right >>>>>to declare him the winner with prize money, but having >>>>>a won position and winning are two different things. >>>>>I think this game should be left out of the TPR >>>>>calculation. Just 2 cents. :) >>>> >>>>I always counted it because Rebel was indeed lost. Ed agrees, by the way. But >>>>since you have a different opinion, why don't you make 2 lists, one with ant the >>>>other without this game? >>> >>>2 points... a) I think Rebel would have lost the Hoffman game by good >>>play of Hoffman but how can you be sure of that? >> >>That's Uri's point. I am personally sure enough, but even in case of uncertainty >>the game should count, or else no games played on the Kyro thing should count. I >>mean, if we count points scored by Rebel on that particular overclocked (faster) >>machine, we should also count the games lost because of failure due to >>overclocking. > > >There is not logical simetry between winning with some device and losing because >a failure of it. The normal thing for a device is good operation, the >malfunctioning is an accident. Only with the average good functioning you have a >measure of what a progran can do, not with the accident. I insist that a defeat >because of the accident must be taken into account in a tornament, just bad luck >as the flu of a human, but if we are doing an experiment, and that is what Chris >is doing, it has not sense to include not operatives episodes of the experiment. >Fernando > > That doesn't make sense. The "strength" of a computer is a measure of how it does against human competition. If it loses 1 game out of every 4 due to hardware failures, then those games belong in the rating formula. Because hardware failures are a fact of life. A human gets sick in the middle of a game, he loses. If he doesn't he plays on. Some people get sick more frequently than others. This should be reflected in their rating since there is a definite chance they will get sick when they play me... You have to take the good with the bad, or else it is just "cherry-picking". If you cherry-pick, you can produce any rating you want... > >> >>Enrique >> >>> and b) the hardware >>>collapsed, better show up with good hardware. The machine had a flu so >>>can humans have, so always count the game in case of hardware failures. >>> >>>Ed >>> >>>>Enrique >>>> >>>>>Best Regards, >>>>>Chris Carson
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.