Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 00:31:26 08/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2000 at 00:42:46, Uri Blass wrote:
>On August 25, 2000 at 21:01:04, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On August 25, 2000 at 17:21:00, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On August 25, 2000 at 17:11:00, Fernando Villegas wrote:
>>>
>>>>I suppose that Chessbase people cannot feel very good. They putted three horses
>>>>of his corral into the race and the winner was the solitary stead from
>>>>Millenium. I bet somebody there is just now ready for harakiri.
>>>>fernando
>>>
>>>I disagree.
>>>
>>>chessbase did not do a bad result.
>>>
>>>Fritz is number 2
>>>Junior is number 5
>>>Nimzo is number 7
>>>
>>>
>>>All of them finished in the first half of the participants.
>>>
>>>Uri
>>
>>
>>When you enter 3 top programs in a tournament, your chances to get one at the
>>first place is much higher than if you enter only one or two programs. Still, it
>>did not happen.
>>
>>Let's calculate the "team performance" for the following computer chess
>>companies:
>>
>>1) ChessBase
>>2) Millenium
>>3) Shröder BV
>>
>>
>>ChessBase has:
>> Fritz, ranking #2
>> Junior, ranking #5
>> Nimzo, ranking #7
>>Average ChessBase ranking: 4.67 ( that is: (2+5+7)/3 )
>>
>>Millenium has:
>> Shredder, ranking #1
>>Average Millenium ranking: 1.00
>>
>>Shröder BV has:
>> Rebel, ranking #3
>> Chess Tiger, ranking #4
>>Average Shröder BV ranking: 3.50
>>
>>
>>Standings of the teams:
>>
>> 1. Millenium 1.00
>> 2. Shröder BV 3.50
>> 3. ChessBase 4.67
>>
>>
>>
>>The reason for taking the average of the rankings, and not the highest program
>>of each team, is that if you enter several programs in the hope that one wins
>>the tournament, then you have to accept that the result of all your programs are
>>taken into account for your global performance.
>
>I think that it is better to use average rating and not average ranking.
>
>You need to calculate rating based on the tournament(assuming the results repeat
>again and again.
>
>Rebel and tiger are not going to enjoy from it because they won 2 games against
>the weakest programs that everybody wins.
I have never seen a tournament sorted by tournament performance ratings.
If it was better to use average rating, tournaments would be sorted by ratings,
not by score.
>Fritz did not play against them.
>Nimzo did not play against them.
>Junior played only against 1 of them.
>
>I do not say that rebel's rating or tiger's rating will be worse than Junior or
>Nimzo.
>
>Rebel and tiger had 4 out of 7 if you do not include the 2 last programs.
>Junior has 4.5 out of 8 and Nimzo has 5 out of 9.
>
>4/7 is bigger than 4.5/8 or 5/9 but the difference is not big and it is logical
>to think that the average rating of Fritz Junior and nimzo is better.
>
>Their scores is 16 out of 26 without games against weak programs.
>tiger and Rebel score is 8 out of 14 (if you do not include the last 2 players)
>
>16 out of 26 is better than 8 out of 14.
By selecting a given number amongst the games played against weaker opponents
you can get exactly the rankings that you want...
Maybe the top programs were good enough to get the point anyway against the 4
weakest programs, or maybe against the 6 weakest, who knows...
The only fair way is to take into account the games that were played, and not
the games that would have been played, or to avoid taking into account some
selected games for whatever reason.
Christophe
>>Now, I don't know for sure what to do about Nimzo, as it is also sold by
>>Millenium (at least an older version). I assume Nimzo is a ChessBase entry, but
>>I might be wrong.
>
>The new version will be sold by chessbase and there are no plans to sell it by
>the millenium today.
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.