Author: Amir Ban
Date: 03:58:14 02/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 23, 2000 at 15:01:14, Bertil Eklund wrote: >On February 23, 2000 at 12:33:50, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On February 23, 2000 at 11:08:43, blass uri wrote: >> >>>shredder2 was not tested on the fast hardware because the ssdf always use fast >>>hardware for new programs and old hardware for old programs. >> >>Has anyone considered that this might be a major source of error, perhaps rating >>inflation? > >Why? Any suggestions of what to do instead. Do you think humans should refuse to >play opponents rated 200 elo higher or lower. > >>"Always" is a bad word to use when you are trying to get an accurate result from >>a system that is designed to produce accurate ratings within a pool where >>everyone plays everyone under the same average conditions. > >Have you ever thought about that the human pool works in the same way, except >for being much bigger? > >There is a slight inflation because some older programs have no >learning-function. > >Of course the pool should be calibrated but not because of someones gut-feelings >or wild guesses. > >Bertil >> >>bruce I think your real mistake is to use Shredder as the favorite competitor on the MMX200 machine. Some people see testing on unequal platforms as an injustice to the program running on the weaker machine, and by now you should understand that you will not be able to convince them otherwise. Shredder is highly protected by some frequent posters here, and you are asking for trouble by testing it in the way you do. You can easily avoid it by picking a different program to test. You can take Junior 5/MMX200, for example, with my blessing. Amir
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.