Author: Uri Blass
Date: 23:58:04 09/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 13, 2002 at 22:44:16, David Dory wrote: >On September 13, 2002 at 18:39:40, martin fierz wrote: > >>On September 13, 2002 at 15:45:05, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>I'm sorry but I cannot agree! Would you think taht Elo is a universal utility >>>for calculating the chess performance of humans alone or humans and apes and >>>flowers? Remind you of the apples and beans theorem. It doesn't make sense to >>>make a ranking with the Elo for totally different species. MEPHISTO ROMA has >>>nothing to do with JUNIOR 7. Besides that they both play chess. But where is the >>>point for comparisons? >> >>i've played a tournament games against a GMs rated 2697.i've often played >>first-round games in opens against beginners with a 1600 rating. it all counts >>for my rating... why do you need to make up special rules for computer ratings >>if we don't need it for human ratings? >> >>aloha >> martin > >Hi martin, > To establish an elo, or a winner at a tournament, equal hardware is certainly >not required. Only wins, losses and draws, of course. > >What Rolf and I object to is testing/competing with a chess program on vastly >different hardware, and then saying - "Yep that MyChess program has an elo of >only 1242 - just lousy." (or whatever results are thus claimed, good or bad.) The fact that people can get wrong conclusions is not a reason not to test. It is clear that the players in the ssdf are software+hardware. Uri
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.