Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 19:29:34 05/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
:)
There are many notions as to what should be rated or not rated. None are
right and none are wrong, a priori, i.e. in the abstract. Judgement of the
notions depends on what one is trying to achieve (measure, rate, etc).
Humorous to me is something I was contemplating a bit earlier, when posting
elsewhere (above or below I don't remember at this instant) about some rating
calculations I do for myself (TPR, GPR, ATPR, AGPR, etc) and other ideas for
interesting statistics and measures (I like graphs, especially, of time series
trends):
By necessity our ELO-based calculations are founded on past games. We are
obtaining a measure, largely, of how a program *has* performed (in the past).
Statistics books will warn you, just like stock prospectuses and
advertisements for investment funds, 'Past performance is no guarantee of
similar future performance, which may not be as good.' or some such similar
phrase.
It is only when we consider program performance trends (over time) that we
begin to think about how a program will perform in the future (next game, next
event, etc).
--Steve
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.