Author: Will Singleton
Date: 09:28:51 01/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2000 at 12:24:00, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On January 18, 2000 at 11:27:43, Will Singleton wrote: > >>On January 18, 2000 at 11:15:19, Francesco Di Tolla wrote: >> >>>The formula initially used the clock instead of the logarithm of it. It was even >>>worse so I suggested to take the log of the clock which, at that time, seemed to >>>give a better description of threal situation. >>>I suggested the log because it is quite clear that a doubling of the clock does >>>give just a little extra elo and not a doubling of it. There are many >>>"non-linearities" both in the increase of strength with the clock and in the >>>increase of the elo with the increase of strenght. >>> >>>Probably there is no such an easy formula to be found to better describe the >>>relationships between programs at different clocks, but this is the best we have >>>found so far. >>>If you have a better idea (and saying that it sucks is not a better idea) let >>>all us know. >>> >>>regards >>>Franz >> >>Yes, I am always open to suggestions. Come up with a better formula, Vincent, >>I'll use it. > >Remove the silly R(Mhz) formula Will. > >>Will It's only *silly* if you can give me a better one. Do you not think there is some relationship between cpu speed and performance? If so, what is that relationship? Will
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.