Author: stuart taylor
Date: 03:53:26 07/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2002 at 18:20:06, Dann Corbit wrote: >On July 01, 2002 at 17:22:45, stuart taylor wrote: >[snip] >>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. > >That's absurd. Look at the error bars and you will see your term "proof" go >poof. > >>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. > >No but they do have bugs. And there may be a bad line exploited over and over >again (intentionally or otherwise). I have often seen the case where one engine >with a superior ELO gets clobbered by a vastly inferior engine. Well? That's exactly what I'm trying to say! > >>The wins being in blocks should in general look more >>suspect than they are. Unless they are closely rated. > >I am sure you are right, but how big of a block is suspect? Each single win (of weaker engine) of the same block makes it MUCH more suspect, especially if it is an isolated block. S.Taylor > >I am running a big contest now, etc.
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.