Author: Antonio Dieguez
Date: 22:04:41 02/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 08, 2003 at 06:28:00, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On February 08, 2003 at 03:30:34, Peter Kappler wrote: > >> >>He has some good ideas. >> >>http://www.worldchessrating.com/521683950.html?529637011233717 >> >>-Peter > >The one thing that always bugs me about Sonas's stuff is that he takes the data, >does some fitting on it, then says "see, this fits the data better!". Well, of >course it does! yes and that's good. "Some fitting", you are being despective with the way he does it. I don't see anything so weird or so senseless. Let imagine if I only tune the K factor with real data instead of no data. If I do that, I wonder who can't believe that's no good. And so on with a few other things. If there were a sound theory behind dictaminating wich should be the best k then it is other thing though. > What he should do is have training data that is *distinct* from >his testing data, e.g. tune his formulae on results from (for example) >1990-1995, then test on (for example) 1996-2000. and after test and correct, end up with the same thing... just kidding > Tuning on 1990-2000, then >testing on 1990-2000 is bogus. he is tuning on 1990-2000 and betting it will work better for other periods.
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.