Author: Heinz van Kempen
Date: 06:08:14 12/07/05
Go up one level in this thread
<<If you take Kasparov. You let him play 500 opponents of 1500-2200 Elo. Normally he gets 100%! From his strength. But due to chance and other factors that are more or less irrelevant he gets "only" 95%. Also: my relativation was NOT meant this way that a reasonable number of amateur programs would come close to SHREDDER or FRITZ. What I meant was that a few could make a reasonable match. But my argument is totally ignored that if you take these other 495 programs who are absolutely out of any reach, that they are breaking the testing result importance through their irrelevance. I thought that it was clear that we discussed chess strength and NOT the stability of the engines over a longer testing from the mere technical view. I dont know how to make it clearer. If normally you expect 100% results, 22-0, then it is no abberation if you get 19-3 due to hardware failure or such mere artefakts how we call it in stats.>> Hi Rolf, as always you are putting it to the extreme :-). In CEGT we care for giving games only against opponents which ratings do not differ by more than +-250 ELO points. You might find very few games not fitting to this standards, but this are exceptions not having any effect with so many games overall. Anyway a valuable comment from your side giving us some stuff to discuss in our private forum. Thanks. Best Regards Heinz
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.