Author: Chris Carson
Date: 14:18:13 05/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 13, 2001 at 17:08:55, Joshua Lee wrote: >500 games is not an arbitrary number, this is the number of Games at a minimum >on the SSDF list where the ratings were steady +- 30 instead of +- 50 or 60 so >there goes one of your assumptions the other I know you are not a part of SSDF, >That's number two and as far as your example goes those GM's have most likely >played more than 500 Games so 1 tournament proves nothing ask around i am sure >the people in here will agree that you can't tell much by just 1 tournament. >But you can believe what you want. Like i said Junior is too High there is no >way for example that it can be so close in rating to 9x faster hardware if you >believe that i would worry think about it it is like saying junior on a 286 is >100pts below junior on 450Mhz????????????????????? Hello. Like i said before it >is only 1 tournament but still you can tell the ssdf results are wrong just by >puting this to mind , junior has played withing the ssdf rating pool which >includes some games against humans still with a decent margin of error and has >recieved a rating of 2523 which is almost 100pts too high still on 450 which is >9 times slower than an 8 way 700Mhz machine which is trippling the speed twice >or 90 x 2 180 like before how much memory did deep junior use this does make a >difference. I believe SSDF is wrong and i am sure most people can do the >research and find out the same if they don't believe me. FYI the examples from >tony's page were not used in the ssdf's rating pool so only 183 games are being >used but you would be right about one thing if they used those games they would >have the so called arbitrary number (500 games)i mentioned but ofcourse you >didn't say that. I stand by my previous posts. :) Best Regards, Chris Carson
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.