Author: Lanny DiBartolomeo
Date: 13:32:14 01/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2001 at 16:01:16, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 11, 2001 at 15:58:55, James T. Walker wrote: > >>On January 11, 2001 at 14:59:06, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On January 11, 2001 at 14:46:01, Garry Evans wrote: >>> >>>>On January 11, 2001 at 13:39:03, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 11, 2001 at 11:43:10, Drazen Marovic wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The sad thing is, if rebel had lost by a measly half point countless here >>>>>>would still try to deny comps gm strength. >>>>> >>>>>There is not enough evidence to confirm or deny the assertion either way. >>>>> >>>>>The 1/2 point swing in the other direction (for the comp) is no different. But >>>>>in any case, there are certainly not enough games to make a logical statement. >>>>>Only an emotional one. >>>> >>>>Baloney! We have more than enough games, simply visit Chris Carson's chess page. >>> >>>Been there, done that. >>>Take the individual combinations of machine and program, and calculate the error >>>bars for ELO. They are close to infinity. >> >> >>Why do that? Why not assume that all computers are essentially equal and go >>from there? If only one is of GM strength then using all of them could only >>decrease the argument for GM strength. > >We can do anything we like and make any sort of assumptions that we choose. >Fortunately, we have mathematics to test our models afterwards. Without using >this tool, we are making emotional choices rather than logical ones. There is >nothing wrong with that, but (personally) I prefer a rational approach. Don't we have enough 40n 2 games to give a USCF type rating?
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.