Author: odell hall
Date: 12:38:44 10/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 15, 1999 at 15:25:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 15, 1999 at 15:08:59, odell hall wrote: > >>On October 15, 1999 at 15:00:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On October 15, 1999 at 13:25:17, Howard Exner wrote: >>> >>>>Anyone have the scoop on this re-match? Watching the one game on the rebel page >>>>but how are the other three games unfolding? >>> >>> >>>Rebel won 1 game, lost 2, and drew 1. >> >> >> >> Unfortunately a very disapointing result for Rebel, I bet your real happy! I >>don't know what these two losses mean , since the I'ms are very strong and >>capable of beating any grandmaster on any given day. > > >_I_ happen to be pulling for the computer in every game. But I am realistic >in my expectations of the outcome. This result wasn't bad. 1.5 vs 2.5 for >4 IM players in 4 40/2hr games is not a bad result. It is right in line with >what I would expect/hope for myself. 2-2 would have been very good. Well wouldn't Rebel's result be bad even if your projection was that Rebel was a 2450 elo player? So I don't see how you could say this is not a bad result. The problem is we are not using consistent hardware? What if I was to use a pent 133 and lost, would you factor in that result. Where do we draw the line as far as counting the hardware? I wonder after all this grandmaster challenge is over, what can we really say? Rebel is X strong on what hardware? since there have been alot of differnet machines used. If I was to play rebel on four diffenent machines How can I generalize as to what rebel strength is?? Since no consistent machine is used? I hope you get what I am trying to say here. I think this is another flaw in this experiment. Non consistency!
This page took 0.01 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.