Author: George Tsavdaris
Date: 13:20:31 03/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 12, 2004 at 16:05:54, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 12, 2004 at 16:02:18, Chessfun wrote: > >>On March 12, 2004 at 15:00:31, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On March 12, 2004 at 14:22:29, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >>> >>>>Hi Sarah >>>>A fantastic performance of Rufian 2.1.0 >>>>Kurt >>> >>> >>>11 Ruffian 2.1.0 : 2623 62 46 114 53.9 % 2596 37.7 % >>>17 Ruffian 2.0.0 : 2602 37 56 150 49.0 % 2609 40.7 % >>>21 Ruffian 1.0.1 : 2583 46 32 220 51.4 % 2573 38.2 % >>> >>>statistical error is bigger than the 40 elo >>> >> >>As I'm sure you're aware Uri bringing down the statistical error requires >>thousands of games, for example: >> >>On this same list is good old Fritz 6. And even after 1224 games still shows >>statistically that it could be 19 points stronger or 14 points weaker than it's >>current rating. >>30 Fritz 6 : 2543 19 14 1224 53.0 % 2523 37.5 % >> >>All I'm saying is playing another 200 games with this engine will not resolve >>that issue for you. >> >>Sarah. > >I do not blame you of not playing enough games and I only responded to the >fantastic result claim. > >If the result is really fantastic then there is no doubt that there is an >improvement. >If there is only small improvement I cannot define the result as fantastic. > To say the result is fantastic or not, you have to define "fantastic" first. And you have to define it with mathematical statements of course. But if we start defining every expression with the math language then our communication will be dry and all the emotions will be vanished. Accuracy is good but not always. Kurt expressed a feeling it had based on his instinct and that's all.
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.