Author: stuart taylor
Date: 14:22:45 07/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2002 at 15:21:09, Dann Corbit wrote: >On July 01, 2002 at 14:55:41, Albert Silver wrote: > >>On July 01, 2002 at 14:49:47, pavel wrote: >> >>>On July 01, 2002 at 14:47:40, ERIQ wrote: >>> >>>>I'm not sure about you guys but I'm in shock !! >>> >>>Because how the PGN output looks? >>> >>>;) >>>cheers, >>>pavs >> >>Either that or because Hiarcs 8 on an Athlon 1200 lost to Junior 7 on a K6/450 >>in a previous SSDF match. > >In a span of 4 games, we can expect anything to happen. In the Ridderkerk >tournament, Quark 1.76 blasted Crafty 18.15 4-0. I ran the same programs over >the weekend at G/90 and got: > > Program Elo + - Games Score Av.Op. Draws >1 Crafty-18.15 : 2522 143 105 24 56.2 % 2478 37.5 % >2 Quark v1.76beta : 2478 105 143 24 43.8 % 2522 37.5 % > >I don't know why anyone would be in shock about any 4-0 result unless there were >at least a 500 ELO difference. At 500 elo difference, one win (to the lower rated one) should be quite an interesting happening (two draws would be more likely). Two consecutive wins should be extremely unusual and a little suspect. Three consecutive wins should be plenty cause for shock. Especially due to the fact of them being consecutive, and the only games so far. Four consecutive wins should be plenty grounds to consider it proven to be well under 500 elo difference, or, some other equipment failing or virus. I would never say such a thing if it were 4 wins amongst 7-8 games, although it would normally be spread out amongst about 80 games. I think. But consecutivity is very meaningful mathematicaly. Machines don't have moods. The wins being in blocks should in general look more suspect than they are. Unless they are closely rated. S.Taylor
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.