Author: Steve Glanzfeld
Date: 03:48:49 06/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2004 at 05:55:21, Franz Hagra wrote: >1. looking at the used formula > >rating WM-Test = base 2600 + (2 x LQ) - [5 x (GZ : 100)] That's not very important, because what matters in the first place is the number of solutions, the more when the test is so difficult as this WM test seems to be. This is the main result value to be compared. >So the correct WM Test Ratinglist is: > >1. 2700 former ranked 1-94 engines (here you find nearly all newer engines) >2. 2600 former ranked 95-229 engines (amateur and older pro's) >3. 2500 Queen 2.28 (UCI) ?! This is clearly bogus. I have studied that data. In the first section you mention, ranks 1-94, the programs have solved from 54/100 to 73/100 positions! You give the SAME rating to programs which solve 54, 60, 65, 70 pos.? The first value I always look at is, how many solutions a program has achieved. If one has 70 and the other has 60, my very simple conclusion is that the first one has performed better :) You give both 2700? Are you joking? :) It's even more extreme in the second part, 95-229. There, #95 scored 55 solutions, but #229 only 19. 55 compared to 19! I don't think anybody serious will consider to attach the same test ranking to these :)) I really have no idea what you're proposing here. It doesn't make sense. Steve
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.