Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:49:26 05/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 26, 2002 at 05:09:33, Torstein Hall 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. > >If you can not do that then I think you can forget about rating. I'm playing >different players based on rating and of course often we have not played the >same persons. That is one of the reasons we have rating! This is absurd. I assist Martin Schubert that _testing_ could not allow deliberately chosen opponents. We are talking about rankings in test series, _not_ in real life tournaments. > >>My suggestion: the top programms should play the same opponents to make it >>possible to compare their results. >>If I remember right it happens quite often that a program is very strong in the >>first rating list it appears in (where it plays against weak opponents). In the >>next rating list where it has to fight the tough ones it falls back in the >>rating list. > >That is what the error margins are for. I think the rating normally stays within >this limits. So for a given program that has got a SSDF rating of say 2600 +/- >43 You can say with 95% (if I remember right) confidence that the program has a >rating within the range 2557 - 2643 This is absolutely false. THe error margins have _nothing_ in principal to do with different opponents (on different hardware actually)! The margins are simply a consequence of the statistical maths. Rolf Tueschen > >Torstein >> >>Regards, Martin
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.