Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 18:39:28 11/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 1999 at 20:06:31, Tina Long wrote: >The results of what I am asking could be badly misinterpreted, & could result in >silly arguements, but if read properly would, for many here, be very >interesting. > >In the discussions of "Who's best" there is rarely any consideration of the +/- >in the SSDF list, we get statements such as >"ProgramX is best; it's 5 points ahead of the rest." > >Now this is poetic, but wrong, as ProgramX's result is 2680 +/- 70, >From the games played we can be 95% sure ProgramX is rated somewhere between >2610 and 2750. > >This is not ELO, this is the progression of computers vs computers since some >computers played some humans about 20 years ago. The whole list was "deflated" >by 100 points about 10 years ago, and looks like it should be deflated by >another 100 points now. The only real relationship to ELO we currently have is >Rebel's small sample of Computer Human games, and as Rebel is constantly being >improved we don't know it's current rating as the rating is biased by the >"older" Rebel results- but that's a tangent.... sorry > >I'll get to the point: >When the next SSDF is release at the end of November, I'd like one of the >smarter maths whizes here to do the following calculations for me: > >Using: >What's the improvement in rating in going from a 200mhz to a 450mhz? >(Looking at the last list, it's about 70 +/- 30) >Ditto from 486/50 and P90 to 200 or 450? > >Create a list of estimated ratings on a unified platform, combining (where >applicable) the games of ProgramX on multiple platforms (many programs have been >tested on 2 mhz levels). The +/- needs to be stated as well as this will >increase dramatically, particularly for ProgramY currently ranked on P90 or a >486/50. > >(And where would my favourite oldie >129 Mephisto Polgar 6502 5 MHz 1970 17 1793 41% 2036 >rank when upgraded (remembering a P450 is probably 300 - not 100 - times faster) >2600 +- 1000 ?) > >Maybe deflating the 450's and using P200 as the unified platform would be best >at this time. > >I realise the results would actually mean little due to the very high >statistical variance in the results, but I would still find it an interesting >ranking. > >Any volunteers to do the sums? >Thanks guys > >Tina Long I sometimes like to do some math things, often in the statistics realm, using my programming skills, math skills and knowledge of bella-shaped curves, oops, I mean bell-shaped curves! I nominalize, normalize and standardize, add a pinch of judgement, select a nominal peg to tie a couple of non-related bell curves together, and voila! I have some great results! I can make nearly any two Bell-shaped curves overlap, if I really want to. It is fun for me, sometimes, to do this kind of thing; however, if I was to publish my results in this forum, with all the real mathematicians and statisticians, and all the rabid chess fans and programming experts, I might be forced to resign my membership and turn in my password (if that is possible!). The fun of doing such noodling with numbers is that there is no right answer! And using a bit of creativity to find the right amount for the 'pinch of judgement' is loads of entertainment. It is playing with numbers that helps us discover things, and I like that a lot. I just don't hold water well when I am shot full of holes. However, I might try something...I do have alcohol and bandages somewhere in my cupboards. --Steve :)
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.