Author: george petty
Date: 09:30:43 01/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2000 at 11:45:37, Will Singleton wrote:
>On January 18, 2000 at 08:49:48, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>"R(mhz) rating/log(mhz)/100. Shows the performance of an account,
>> taking into consideration the cpu speed."
>>
>>First of all Will is taking into account for his formula a logaritme,
>>combines that with rating and computer Mhz.
>>
>>This assumes a logarithmic connection between Mhz of a machine and its
>>rating.
>>
>>Obviously this is wrong.
>>
>>Let's take crafty:
>>
>>Wild 2148 [6] 195 50 8 253 2148 (06-Aug-1999)
>>Bullet 3033 6241 1412 1018 8671 3191 (27-Oct-1999)
>>Blitz 2858 48312 12919 8716 69947 3268 (27-Oct-1999)
>>Standard 2550 3761 1496 1117 6374 2785 (08-Aug-1999)
>>
>>Machine = 4x400 = 1600Mhz
>>rating = 2550
>>
>>So this would make
>> R(mhz) = 25.50 / log(1600) = 7.95
>>
>>Now that sounds a bit low to me personal already.
>>
>>Let's now assume that Bob wants to top the green list:
>>
>> He needs 11.0 then as R(Mhz) to top it more or less.
>>
>>So 11.0 = rating / 100*log(1600)
>> rating = 11 * 100 * log(1600) = 3525
>>
>>So crafty needs an incredible rating of 3525 to top the greenlist.
>>Good luck Bob!
>>
>>Why invent a formula if it's in advance already dead wrong?
>>
>>Rating is not based upon the 10th log of something.
>>It SURE does not represent performance taking into account
>>the machine speed.
>>
>>
>>Vincent
>
>
>Couple things. First, crafty's efficiency isn't 100%, I don't believe. I use a
>figure like 75-80% when calculating the effect of multiple cpus, which is just
>an approximation. But you're right, the formula seems to work better in a
>narrow range. Have a better formula for me?
>
>But come on, Vincent, the whole list is just an approximation. Many folks feel
>that ICC ratings have little real-world significance, due to the factors present
>in server play. Again, the list is just for entertainment purposes, it doesn't
>purport to be anything official.
>
>Having said that, on ICC one does see a general correlation between ratings and
>perceived strength.
>
>Will
Sorry Will, I am afraid to leave the above comments out as one person has
already misunderstood, my point that I was making to Vincent and Bob Hyatt.
One, I was in agreement with Vincent on his opinion of the formula.
Two, with that formula, Bob's program would not be able to come close to moving
up much.
Three, there is nothing wrong with the formula, if it is just a ballpark
approximation.
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.