Author: Mark Young
Date: 15:36:20 01/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 2000 at 14:19:53, Christophe Theron wrote: >On January 24, 2000 at 11:44:48, Thorsten Czub wrote: > >>excactly this makes no sense. >> >>test them all on 450. >>and test top programs versus weaker programs. >> >>but throw out the very old programs like shredder2. >> >>this makes no sense. your statistics get weakened by these >>results. the results are not reflecting the strength. >> >>all on 450. >>top programs + weaker programs. >>throw out the very old things. >>one version behind = latest-1 is ok, but latest - 2 is IMO >>too old. > > >Thorsten, an elo calculation can be done for a new program only if its opponents >have a known, well established elo (with many games, and a small error margin). > >This is why it is better to play against older program than against new programs >on 450, because the new programs have a too big error margin. > >It's maybe the 3rd or 4th time I repeat this to you. The SSDF results are VALID. > >Of course you want to see the recent programs play against each other, but this >is not the job of the SSDF. Their job is to compute ratings as accurate as >possible. > >This is the job of passionated testers, like you, Shep, Enrique and others, to >play the recent programs against each other. > >Let the SSDF do the less interesting work, and do yourself the interesting >stuff. We are listening carefully to both the SSDF and testers. > >But don't say SSDF results make no sense. It is refreshing to see a chess programmer call it like it is, I have noticed you do not make excuses for you programs results, good or bad. Very Refreshing!!! I am sure this is one of the reasons your program is tops on the SSDF list, you look at the results objectively. > > > > Christophe
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.