Author: Martin Schubert
Date: 08:01:04 05/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 26, 2002 at 10:42:34, Torstein Hall wrote: >On May 26, 2002 at 07:49:26, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>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 >Who are you arguing with? > >The absurd thins is that I never has sayed what you say is absurd!!!! I was just >reading what the numbers meen! And that is we can tell a rating with 95% >confidence inside this margins! > >But another thing Martin did say was that we can not use the numbers when we >have played different players. I disaggree strongly to that, as long as we are >talking about the same pool of players. If it was not for that, rating numbers >would be utterly useless. (And maybee they are....... :-D ) > >Torstein Not the ratings are useless. Trying to do statistics with ratings is useless under these circumstances is useless. > > > >> >> >>> >>>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.