Author: Richard Pijl
Date: 16:59:53 02/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
> >Let's take the debate to a higher level since you have a differentiated view. > >Ok, let's take them for amateurs (not scientists). But still what would you >think about a "responsibility" of persons, who call themselves neutral, >and who present a number one, although this month the two top programs were >seperated by 8 points (with SD of >30 points), and who are well aware of the >meaning of SD? Would you say, ok, they are amateurs, the don't understand the >danger or would you go farther and state that the result ["number one"] is ok >with the 8 points advantage? I think the SSDF is very well aware of the commercial impact their list has. That is probably the reason they print the remark on the error margin above the list. When talking about the error margin (which is not the same as SD): That is quite arbitrary as well. The error margin itself is related to a reliability factor, which is typically 95% (I don't know the actual number used by SSDF in this though). If you want to have a list with higher reliability, the reported error margins are higher. So what might be interesting is to calculate what the reliability is of an 8 point difference in this list. I don't see anything wrong with calling Shredder the number 1. The next list may feature another engine at the number 1 spot, giving it a spotlight for a month too. And if it still is Shredder? Perhaps it was the best engine then ... ;-) > >A second aspect is the Elo base as such for new progs. What do you think about >the Elosystem in view of progs who become 2700 players i a day or two? Should we >rethink the Elosystem for comps? We can always rethink the ranking system. But I don't know of a better system for this purpose than the Elosystem... Richard.
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.