Author: Mridul Muralidharan
Date: 11:02:53 01/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2005 at 13:01:29, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On January 12, 2005 at 12:42:05, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>So let me see if I understand this conversation correctly. >> >>1. I state that the 6 man tables are worth 100 elo > >I thought you were joking, but obviously I was wrong. > I have no quantitative way of accurately guessing this too - but "depends on program" maynot be a wrong statement ? And both are definitely agreeing that there is a non-trivial improvement in performance - right ? Then why disagree for the sake of disagreeing !!!! >> >>2. You disagree, and state they are worth 50 elo >> >>3. You do this by pulling numbers out of your *** >> >>4. Since the full 6-man set hasn't been generated, and the elo gain is almost >>certainly different for different programs, we are both guessing. > >Yes, but in this case Uri's guess is much more educated. Hmm , I dont see how - just 'cos there was a "women" reference ? :) Jokes apart - the point to be taken is - they could be a SIGNIFICANT improvement : and would be the world of difference between a loss and a draw (or a draw and a win). Depends on how you eval , and what you do in your search (extensions and qsearch /threat detection). Ofcourse , if you have a junk endgame eval with quiet decent middle game eval - your improvement can be much higher than what both of them quote ! But are we not quibbling over nitty gritty details ?? 50 , 100 , 125 - what does it matter : it would be a substantial improvement !!! Mridul <snip>
This page took 0.02 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.