Author: Chessfun
Date: 05:36:19 01/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2000 at 07:28:32, Tina Long wrote: >On January 26, 2000 at 07:21:35, Tina Long wrote: > >>On January 25, 2000 at 22:27:39, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>On January 25, 2000 at 07:55:48, Tony Hedlund wrote: >>> >>>>On January 25, 2000 at 00:59:39, Tina Long wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 24, 2000 at 14:52:31, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 24, 2000 at 14:19:53, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>>>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). >>>>>> >>>>>>correct. >>>>>> >>>>>>>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. >>>>>> >>>>>>no problem with me. the problem i have is with very old prgs. >>>>>> >>>>>>>It's maybe the 3rd or 4th time I repeat this to you. The SSDF results are VALID. >>>>>> >>>>>>its valid but senseless. >>>>><snip> >>>>> >>>>>To decide who is rightest here I need to know: >>>>>What is the expected result in an 18 game match between two human players who >>>>>are rated 2620 & 2505? >>>> >>>>12-6 >>>> >>>>>What is the rating achieved by both players if the result is 14.5 - 3.5? >>>> >>>>It indicates a ratingdifference with 238 points, 2681-2443. >>>> >>>>>I will make my own opinion if I think the margin of error is too great. >>>>>(My interest here is also STILL in CM6k & it's flogging of Sparc 20mhz, and >>>>>programs on 486/66's) >>>>> >>>>>Thanks to anyone who can answer those two questions. >>>>> >>>>>Tina Long >>>> >>>>Tony >>> >>>Over only 18 games how can anyone judge. What is the current score >>>with these two programs?. from what I read a lot closer than the >>>original 14.5 - 3.5. >>>Thanks. >> >>WOW!!! message 91737: result is now 17-15 which means Shredder has won 11.5 - >>2.5 in the last 14 games. WOW!!! >> >>Granted the sample is way too small & this latest result is wonderful evidence >>of that. >> >>I can't wait to see if Thorsten is going to comment. >> >>Thank You! >>Tina Long > >Sorry guys, >91769 corrects that typo to be 17 - 5. > >Please withdraw the WOW's & insert "that's to be expected's". > >Sorry Thorsten ;>} > >Tina Long Glad you caught 91769, I had already seen 91737. :-) lol Thanks.
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.