Author: Francesco Di Tolla
Date: 04:01:20 01/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
> He's a scientist. Big masses belief in what they produce. He produces crap. Vincent that formula contains a scientific idea behind, the fact that you don't understand or don't understrand that even scientific theories have limits of applicatbility is not our problem, it is yours. Did anybody ever prooved that the ELO system is effective in estimating players strenght? No, on the contrary we have clear suggestions that it is easy to fool it (e.g. playing in closed tournaments only etc... as many have pointed out after Las Vegas) but this does not mean we should not use the ELO system. The same way that formula is a way to compare computer programs on different hardware. It is not perfect, but it is not even crap. I insist: a non perfect theory is better than none (and this has always been true in science). If you have a better formula let us now. But dont tell us: "don't consider the MHz" because comparing programs not accounting fot the cpu speed is not what is wanted. You're argument about the clock should have Crafty to top that list is not a proof: who ever said that a progam scoring an ELO of >3000 is better than one with a lower ELO? I guess that anybody could run Fritz/Junior/Rebel/Shredder on a 486 and get an elo below 3000 on ICC, and still claim that problably that program is stronger than Crafty (with all my respect for Bob programs). Instead of talking about "sucking crap" give us areal arguments. regards Franz
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.