Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:21:58 08/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2002 at 06:45:03, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 26, 2002 at 06:18:11, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On August 25, 2002 at 12:00:06, Peter Fendrich wrote: >> >>>On August 25, 2002 at 07:59:54, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >>> >>>>Please have a look at >>>> >>>>http://ccc.it.ro/search/ccc.php?art_id=217174 >>>> >>>>Regards >>>>Kurt >>> >> >>============================================================================= >>>These tables are not accurate at all for the lines covering only few games. >>============================================================================= >> >>So, the tables are not correct (for the cases when you only have few, very few >>games!), "because" the tables require normal distribution. So far so good. Now >>you are argueing, let's take binominal or trinominal, and then we could get rid >>of the limitations when you have very few cases (like in SSDF)? I hope I had no >>language interferences? > >ssdf usually play hundreds of games with every program so I do not see the only >few games problem. Excuse me, but I see it. How many hundreds of games they play, that could be added up? > >> >>Without agitation let me make this very clear. Any attempt to show something >>reasonable out of only very few cases (like in SSDF) is a myst. The limitations >>out of very few cases is absolutely given. There is no way or "trick" to heal >>that. >> >>There is only one single remedy and that is the higher number of cases. And >>therefore the actual practice of SSDF is meaningless. And no adding would help >>you out of this mess since you are presenting over 30000 games but these games >>come from totally incomparable entities. But you could have known this before. >>The adding of games in human chess is a completely different process. >> >>BTW let me repeat the question where you take the validity from in SSDF. What do >>you measure? And how did you find control mechanisms? >> >>Also interesting could be where the similarities in Swedish ELO and human chess >>ELO are coming from? Is this decided by definition? When was it done? >> >>Rolf Tueschen > >The list is calculated also based on games of humans against old computers. Tournament games? Do you know details about the very few games then? I think we are talking about a myst, excuse me. > >The rating of the good programs in the list were too high so they decided 1 or 2 >years ago to reduce the rating of all programs by 100 elo to make the rating of >the programs in the top of the list more realistic against humans. And now the height is ok? How did you prove it? Is validity for you a matter of definition or is it part of statistics? Where is validity in SSDF? What are they measuring? Do you know the details? Until now nobody could give me the answer. Let me state that I do not say that we should close SSDF. We have nothing else at the moment. But we shouldn't confuse facts and myst either. Rolf Tueschen > >Uri
This page took 0.01 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.