Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Next Human vs Computer ratings list - I need opinions

Author: Lanny DiBartolomeo

Date: 19:53:08 05/19/00

Go up one level in this thread


On May 19, 2000 at 15:37:25, Dave Gomboc wrote:

>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

I think your right everything should count all games no exceptions on either
side





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.