Author: Terry Ripple
Date: 09:24:25 06/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2002 at 12:11:19, Terry Ripple wrote:
>On June 14, 2002 at 11:01:08, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>
>>On June 14, 2002 at 10:28:24, stuart taylor wrote:
>>
>>>On June 14, 2002 at 07:42:21, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>>>
>>>>I can only say once again that I have seen match results of 9-1 followed by 1-9
>>>>and that for this reason quite a large number of games are needed to say for
>>>>sure that program A is stronger than program B.
>>>>Kurt
>>>
>>>It is a bit interesting why it goes in blocks.
>>>Maybe when Fisher beat Larsen and Taimanov 6-0 each, maybe Larsen too, that
>>>didn't mean ANYTHING in the world either?
>>>S.Taylor
>>
>>There is perhaps a big difference between human vs human and computer vs
>>computer matches. A player of high top level will hardly ever lose 3 or 4 games
>>over a match of 20 games against a player having 200-300 ELO less. Such things
>>however often happen in computer matches.
>>Kurt
>---------------
>I disagree! A lower rated player who is 200 ELO points lower than his opponent
>still has a win expectancy of aproximately 24% according to the United States
>Chess Federation's win expectancies analysis! My friend who has a rating of 2345
>ELO and has won three Pennsylvania State Championships three years in a row
>against stiff competition has agreed to these figures as he has lost games in
>many tournaments to players rated 200 points lower than him and comes near to
>these figures of 24% loses over hundreds of games!
>
>You can't always expect this 24% figure from a small pool of games such as the
>20 games mentioned but from a pool of perhaps hundreds or possibly it could take
>thousands of games to show aproximately this 24% win expectancy from a player
>rated 200 points less than his opponent.
>
>Best regards,
>Terry
--------------
I forgot to add that i agree with you in regards to computer vrs. computer
matches don't agree with the same figures of human vrs. human matches! I wonder
if it's because computers are statisticaly accurate more often in their tactical
analysis compared to humans tactical analysis!
Regards,
Terry
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.