Author: Torstein Hall
Date: 08:04:01 05/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 26, 2002 at 11:01:04, Martin Schubert wrote: >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. What makes the statistics useless? Book learning? And is not that part of the program? Just as the opening book? Torstein > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>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.