Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:34:16 06/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2004 at 06:48:49, Steve Glanzfeld wrote: >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? :) Steve, you play a game here with Hagra. Please don't copy and past only parts of what Hahra wrote only to ridicule him. You argue here, with many smileys of course, as if he, Hagra, were the author of the test and its formula. But this is a real bogus because Hagra does only discuss what the test formula really means in effect. It's _not_ Hagra who says this or that about the same range for most different solution numbers for different programs! It follows from the test formula itself. Now you snipped exactly that part - this is always the most difficult part for lays in statistics, the one about significance - and then of course it makes no sense at all why suddenly Hagra "argues" as if _he_, Hagra, would say that a ranking should look like that. But in reality Hagra says that this *nonsense* would follow out of the formula IF [this is now the professional key argument] the maximal possible considerable out of the given significance would be considered. You are completely right with your anger :) about such a *nonsense* you had to read, but it's _not_ nonsense, Hagra has created, but it's nonsense coming directly from the formula of the "WM-Test" _if_ it's correctly applied. Hope you can still have some fun in digesting such heavy stuff. :) I do also hope that not too many readers were confused by your little logic games directly after your welcomed entry into this forum as a _new_ member... :) > >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.