Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 16:22:33 07/19/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2005 at 14:05:53, Thomas Logan wrote: >On July 18, 2005 at 14:48:14, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On July 18, 2005 at 14:23:39, Thomas Logan wrote: >> >>>>>current score >>>>> >>>>>THOMAS-KBZT8WLT, 120'/40+60'/20+30' 0 >>>>> >>>>> 12345678901234567890123456789012 >>>>>1 Shredder 9 01010½0½1½1½1½01111½½½½10½0½½001 17.0/32 >>>>>2 Fruit 2.1 10101½1½0½0½0½10000½½½½01½1½½110 15.0/32 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>This is a close match >>>>> >>>>>At the end of twenty it looked like Shredder was running away with the match >>>>> >>>>>since that time however fruit has scored 7-5 against Shredder >>>>> >>>>>Tom >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Tom >>>> You can now see the first time yourself why it's >>>> important to have more than 20 games. >>>> Kurt >>> >>>Hi Kurt >>> >>>Yeah >>> >>>But at classical time control it takes so long >>> >>>I hope no one says 50 is too little you need 100 or more >> >>500 is the reasonable lower bound to get a good idea about strength. >>1000 is much better and 2000 will give a very good picture. >>30 games is only a glimpse of a wild idea about which program is strongest. >> >>If you read Ernst Heinz's book, he offers good statistical reasons why 1000 >>games is a good target. >> >>Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. > >Well the bad news is I do not have the time to play 1000 or even 500 games > >at classical time control > >I will play the planned 50 > >and that can be added to other classical results and perhaps someday > >that will total up to 1000 > >Tom Yes, of course. And 1 game is better than 0 games. And 2 games is better than 1 game. etc.
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.