Author: Antonio Dieguez
Date: 06:34:01 09/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 2004 at 04:40:39, Jorge Pichard wrote: >On September 10, 2004 at 04:12:19, martin fierz wrote: > >>On September 10, 2004 at 03:20:24, Jorge Pichard wrote: >> >>hi jorge, >> >>>difference, please take a closer look. >> >>take a loser look?? > >Please be real, anybody can make a typographical error. What are you implying? > > >>all i'll say is that your results are useless, as usual unfortunately. how many >>times do people have to tell you that 10 games prove NOTHING AT ALL until you >>believe it? >> >>cheers >> martin > > >If you take a closer look and read carefully you will notice that this match is >still in progress, only ten games out of 20 were played, "only" 10, but not "only" 20, curious. If I can change the result of just four games and make a notable difference with that, there are not enough games to me. In each of your two matches if I do that, the result get reversed! If you say you'll do more matches though I suposse is another story. > there are 10 more games >to play. Plus the number of games is not as important as the percentage. If you >have a match of 500 games between these two engines and the score ends in 253 to >247 400-100 is what would be consistent with 8-2, not 253-247. it would be certainly amazing, having something like 400-100 and 80-140. > in in favor of Jonny 2.70 or the other way around, it is NOT proving that >your match statistically is more convincing than my match of 20 games. I take >percentage into consideration not NUMBERS of games. > >PS: Plus this experiment is NOT just of 20 games, but a series of 20 games >matches between two identical engines, with the difference that I switched >opening books for Jonny 2.70, since Jonny doesn' have an opening book. > >Jorge.
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.