Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:17:02 02/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 23, 2000 at 15:30:47, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On February 23, 2000 at 15:01:14, Bertil Eklund wrote: >>Have you ever thought about that the human pool works in the same way, except >>for being much bigger? > >the human pool is inflated too. or do you think lasker was really that weaker >kasparov is ? >the fact that the human pool is inflated, now tells you to make it as stupid >in the machine pool ?? >sense ??? Inflation is completely irrelevant. The ELO rating tells you about broad probabilities. In general, for instance, an ELO difference of 100 points means that given a large enough group of players, those with 100 points less would earn 36% of the points from games and those with 100 points higher would win (100-36)% of the points. >>There is a slight inflation because some older programs have no >>learning-function. > >there is not only a slightly inflation in the ssdf-list. >the programs are not that strong as the list shows. They are exactly as strong as the list shows, if you know what it means. > >>Of course the pool should be calibrated but not because of someones gut-feelings >>or wild guesses. > >pah -
This page took 0.01 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.