Author: Peter Berger
Date: 04:21:23 05/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 2001 at 06:27:33, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >On May 10, 2001 at 06:24:26, Peter Berger wrote: > >>On May 10, 2001 at 06:16:14, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >> >>>I guess, it's the well known "phantasy rating scheme". >>> >>>Uli >>> >>Sorry, your guess is wrong - it is the USCF rating scheme that has been used . >> >>pete > >Do you seriously want to claim that there is a correlation between these number >and the USCF rating of the programs ? > Well, with all of the maths stuff currently on the Board : yes , I do ;-) . I don't think it is a very strong correlation though :-) . Tim asked a question about the test specification - the test offers three different rating schemes to scale the results : USCF , Swedish and British - I was simply stating fact . I didn't post the reference to the USCF rating in the result list - there are simply numbers posted : the more the better ( that's perfectly valid ) . >I don't buy that. > >Let's call it "Kaufman rating" or what ever. > >Uli I think this test is interesting - the solutions given seem to stand the test of time. Some of the positions are very interesting ( at least to me ) - as are the moves the programs choose instead of the solution . For example : several programs chose Rbc1 in CCR 4 - I think it is possible to draw some valid conclusions about the tested programs because of that . To make valid conclusions data is needed - that's why I appreciate everyone testing and posting their results . It's only for fun - it's not like solving the problem of hunger in the world . One result of this testing seems to be quite clear already : the Larry Kaufmann test can't predict the USCF rating of current chessprograms ( enough data ) . Does it have some other merit though ? More results => a better answer maybe. pete
This page took 0.01 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.