Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:07:59 01/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 2000 at 09:02:51, Chris Carson wrote: >On January 05, 2000 at 16:36:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 05, 2000 at 15:11:43, Chris Carson wrote: >> >>>Your opinion is valued. :) >>> >>>Take a look at some of the tournament performance >>>ratings (TPR) of some of the programs (Genius, Junior, Rebel, >>>Tiger, Hiarcs, and others). See the computer resource center, >>>rebel web page, Gambit Soft tournaments page and U pitt. Take >>>a look a the AEGON and other events. Also take a look at the >>>ratings on ICC. Top programs have high ratings there. :) >>> >>>Be prepared to be shocked. Sometimes the programs have high >>>TPR's (above SSDF ratings). Critics call these an aberation. >>>Sometimes the programs have lower than SSDF ratings. Critics >>>call this the norm. I think both are expected and normal, >>>just as human ratings fluctuate within expected norms. :) >>> >>>Best Regards, >>>Chris Carson >> >> >>This is bad statistical methodology however. If you pick any program of your >>choice from Aegon, I will pick one to offset it. For any 2600TPR you find, I >>will find one with a 2200 TPR. That is the problem. Statistics looks at the >>averages, not at individual data points. And the average is way below 2600. >> >>As far as ICC goes, Crafty has been over 3250 there. I doubt it would have a >>prayer in hell of doing that in FIDE events, running on a T932 even. > >Bob, > >You make some good points (as always). :) > >My point was that a 2600 TPR can be found (and I am not surprised based on >SSDF ratings given 95% or 99.7% confidence levels) for some programs. >I agree that 2200 TPR's can also be found. :) I consider both ends of >the spread valid for the programs associated with the numbers. :) > >I think we agree. :) > >Best Regards, >Chris Carson The point where we may not agree is on the question "Is the computer a GM yet?" It is easy to find places where a computer produced 1 2600 TPR. But to become a GM, it has to produce 3, and all the while keep its rating over 2500. That is a lot harder than it is to produce one good result that is just a statistical anomaly. I think that the 3 norms would be very difficult to produce, and staying over 2500 while doing so (at least a year) would be even harder when everyone starts to take notice.
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.