Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 22:02:19 07/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 2000 at 18:14:13, Dann Corbit wrote: >On July 28, 2000 at 15:58:53, blass uri wrote: > >>On July 28, 2000 at 15:33:47, Dann Corbit wrote: >><snipped> >>> Program Elo + - Games Score Av.Op. Draws >>> >>> 1 LarsenVB : 2610 186 226 12 79.2 % 2378 25.0 % >>> 2 Storm : 2557 223 166 12 58.3 % 2498 33.3 % >>> 3 Noonian : 2546 232 144 12 54.2 % 2517 41.7 % >>> 4 Ozwald : 2542 166 223 12 41.7 % 2601 33.3 % >>> 5 Monik : 2363 214 247 12 62.5 % 2274 8.3 % >>> 6 Zephyr : 2317 215 215 12 50.0 % 2317 16.7 % >>> 7 TSCP : 2293 180 402 12 83.3 % 2013 0.0 % >>> 8 SnailSCP : 2185 214 194 12 62.5 % 2096 25.0 % >>> 9 Raffaela : 1893 297 170 12 8.3 % 2310 16.7 % >>> 10 Golem01 : 1695 0 0 12 0.0 % 2295 0.0 % >>(you should not >>include programs that has 0% or 100%). > >What is your scientific reason for exclusion of real data? It is just as valid >to win or lose all of your games as it is to win only a fraction of them. Yes, but it isn't valid to report a "most likely" rating for Golem based on purely upper-bound information. You are better off calculating the others on their own, and sticking Golem at the bottom of the crosstable, leaving its rating unspecified. As soon as it manages a draw or a win, include it in the rating mix, but not until. 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.