Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:49:01 01/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2001 at 16:32:14, Lanny DiBartolomeo wrote: >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? Not even provisional. You can't combine every machine/program combination and call it a single player.
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.