Author: Charles Unruh
Date: 11:34:22 12/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 1999 at 13:24:32, Roger wrote: >I don't see any problem with recalibrating the SSDF, though doing it with as >many of the top programs as possible and with as large a sample of games as >possible would be recommended. Sure I already mentioned Rebel and Junior, and just below you think 3 would do. > >Whether it should be done, or not, can be settled empirically. Differences >between the ELOs of two players translate into probabilities of winning and >losing. Accordingly, it ought to be possible to develop the recalibrated ratings >using a pool of, say, twenty games of three programs at 40/120, and then how >that these new ratings predict the pattrern of wins and losses better than the >old ratings. > >No one can argue with that. And until it can be shown that the new ratings are >better able to predict that the old ones, then I'd just leave it alone. > >Recalibration is inevitable, because GM-computer games will become much more >common. Well not inevitable as no one is currently doing it, but hopefully it will get done soon, we may already have enough rebel games to start with, if not, then with a few more games with a few willing masters on ICC and we'll have enough to rate that program. As for Junior, I suspect there are enough games if not then close. And a few games on ICC or FICS for that matter and it would be a good go to start recalibrating the ssdf, to finally go ahead and prove that i was right all along(Heck that ICC was right based on the ICC poll we had cincerning GM strength. Most people thought Comps were GM strength!) :).
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.