Author: blass uri
Date: 09:56:48 09/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 1999 at 10:03:05, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote: >I would like to know why people do even look at a list like the SSDF, with less >than 200 games played for the top programs. > >I did run a test crafty16.19-cometB06 and got the following results (from nunn >positions,nothing changed but time control, more details in "forget about >computer-computer matches"): > >15 min games 15,5 : 4,5 > >14 min games 14 : 6 > >5 min games 9,5 : 10,5 > >I thought that this shows that maybe less than 200 games played between 2 >programs does not tell you which is how much stronger. SSDF played less than 200 >overall for one prog. ! > >Now since some much more experienced people still take the SSDF list seriously >I'd like to know what is wrong about my conclusion. > >Best Regards, SSDF tell the possible error in the rating and it is very clear from the errors that everyone of the first 4 programs can be number 1. People who really take the SSDF list seriously do not assume that the first program is number 1. Only people who do not take the ssdf list seriously assume this assumption. Uri
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.