Author: José Carlos
Date: 23:46:29 04/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2002 at 17:55:32, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On April 22, 2002 at 16:58:46, José Carlos wrote: > >> I'll search in my rating lists if you want, but I don't think it's necessary. >>My program, for example, performs very badly with little time because: I measure >>time in seconds (integer); when only 15 seconds remaining (more or less) it >>plays instantly until it gets the control. Ok, my program is not the only >>program, but the original post stated "some programs", which is true. >> Amy is also a good example. It performs bad in very fast games. > >I don't think these are very valid examples, because all those programs aren't >able to play correctly due to technical difficulties, it's not really an >algorithmic deficiency. The original post was not about algorithmic deficiencies nor perfect programs. I still believe even "perfect programs" (read top commercials) have this behaviour, but I don't test them, so I don't have data. >i.e. the difference will disappear when playing game in 15 mins vs game in 2h. > >> Look at Averno's rating on ICC. Bullet rating is very low. > >ICC ratings are pretty meaningless. Too dependent on formula, programmer >testing, and subject to large random fluctuations. Asking for numbers and then arguing they're meaningless doesn't make much sense if you don't explain clearly why do you say they're meaningless. Testing and formula don't usually make a difference among time controls. Random fluctuacions exist, but they're not so big to make my examples meaningless. I showed a couple of programs whose bullet rating was 200 points higher than the blitz rating, and another two whose bullet was 200 lower. That's not a random fluctuation. José C.
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.