Author: Ralf Elvsén
Date: 03:37:25 09/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 1999 at 20:32:23, Peter Kappler wrote: > >Ralf, > >I believe your results, but you really need to play more games before drawing >any serious conclusions. I *promise* you that both of those programs are well >above 2000 strength at 40/2 time controls. > >It's possible that your style of play is very effective against computers, and >that this allows you to perform better than your estimated 1700 rating would >suggest. > >It's also possible that you just got lucky in the first few games, and that you >will lose the next 20 in a row. :-) > >Check back with us after another dozen games or so... > >--Peter Thanks for not flaming me, Peter :) Yes, I need to play more games, but it is very time consuming. And believe me, I *know* these programs can play well above 2000. If I try to moderate my statement to an extreme we might both can agree on, it would go something like this: If e.g. a 2300 player plays a number of games and tries to win (and then he have to take risks), the programs will outplay him tactically often enough to gain their "rightful" performance rating = Rx , much above 2000. When they play someone like me, their poor long term planning fails sometimes and they get a performance rating Ry. Ry might be much higher than what I indicated (1700 + 265), but... Ry < Rx , right? Note: for those of you who doesn't quite understand the rating system: this does NOT imply that I would play "better" than the 2300-player. Ralf
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.