Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 08:48:47 11/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 2001 at 11:34:59, Thomas Mayer wrote:
>Hi Christophe,
>
>> Let me repeat it for the third time, and maybe you'll get it this time:
>>
>> by letting very different players (in term of strength) play each other YOU
>> GET A RATING WITH A HUGE ERROR BAR.
>
>I get you already... but I ignore it somehow... :)
>But I ask you: give me some engines with lower strength on Athlon 1333... Maybe
>Fritz 1 on Athlon 1300 ? It is maybe around 2400 on this machine... we can
>calculate with the formula +70 ELOs by each hardware doubling... Any idea how
>ChessTiger on Palm would score then ? Or any other dedicated computer ?
>Or maybe try the Tasc R.30 against some of the top scorers on SSDF. The rating
>difference wouldn't be that huge... But I doubt that it would make a rating that
>is near to the rating it has on the SSDF list.
>
>>For example if you let Chess Tiger for Palm play Athlon 1333 top programs only,
>>you are probably going to get an estimated SSDF elo of 1000 for Tiger, PLUS OR
>>MINUS 1500 points.
>
>Elo calculation would not give such a big error bar. And it is simply unfair to
>compare engines with that speed difference of processors, even if the SSDF list
>says they have about the same rating... DID YOU UNDERSTAND ME NOW ???
>
>> They are useless because after playing them you have collected almost no
>> information, mathematically speaking.
>
>I get games ! What's wrong with calculating a rating out of that ? The
>calculation would not show such a big error bar, even with those 9 games posted
>in the winboard forum. Try it with EloStat, if you want... :)
>
>But to repeat it, I hope you understand me now: THIS IS NOT SOMETHING AGAINST
>CHESSTIGER ON PALM ! It's just a statement that we should be very careful with
>comparission with such huge speed differences in CPU power... The speed
>difference will influent the result much more then the chess strength of the
>contestants.
So we are both repeating that the comparison was useless? Great.
So I still have to understand what was the point of your initial post...
>>On the other hand I agree with you on the fact that subtracting 100 elo points
>>to the bottom of the SSDF list was unfair, because accurate ratings had already
>>been established for those slow computers.
>
>well, we have at least one point, where we agree... :)
It took us time.
Christophe
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.