Author: Harald Faber
Date: 04:16:47 05/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 26, 2002 at 06:30:06, Martin Schubert wrote: >>>Another point: if you took a look at the list where Shredder was leading you >>>could see that the leading programs had played their games against totally >>>different opponents. So you can't compare the ratings at all. >> >>As long as the number of opponents and number of games is large enough, then the >>ratings are as valid as if the programs had played the same opponents. The >>"other" opponents have valid ratings, so the results against "leading" opponents >>are equally valid. Not forgetting of course the degree of accuracy - the +-. > >I don't agree on that. Because I'm sure there are programs playing better >against weak opponents and there are programs playing better against strong >opponents. There is no "valid rating". A rating always depends on the opponents. >In human chess nobody would have the idea to calculate confidence intervalls and >to make statistical observations if one player is better than another player. >But if you do it you have to think about the problem that there is no valid >rating. It depends on the opponent. Sure. Imagine this: 3 progs: A (ELO 2600), B (ELO 2600), C (ELO 2400). Fights begin. A vs. C ends 30-10 B vs. C ends 25-15 Which one is stronger? Then A vs. B ends 15-25 Which one is stronger now?
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.