On May 10, 8:03 pm, Ron wrote:
In article .com,

raylopez99 wrote:
Yes, agreed. As I posted 47.5 posts ago, for very close, nearly tied
rankings, the stronger chess program might make a difference. But for
clear demarcation breakpoints, such as between Capa and Kramnik versus
Karpov and Kasparov, a stronger chess engine doesn't matter.

It appears, RayLopez, that you missed an earlier post of mine which had
two questions related to this very point.

Since I'm sure it was an innocent omission - it's easy to miss a single
post in a long thread, I'll repeat the questions here.

1) Would you feel equally confident if we only gave crafty 11 ply? 10?
8? 4? Where do you draw the line? What non-arbitrary criteria are you
using to suggest that 12-ply is meaningful whereas 3 ply, obviously,
would not be?

2) What objective criteria are you using to define "extremely close"
such that you don't trust the computer's ability to rank players
properly?

I'm very curious to hear your answers to these questions.

-Ron


I expect that his fixation on "normalization" has become
so severe that RL would actually argue that 11 plys are
good enough, that 10 plys are more than adequate, that
9 plys still work well, and that even 7 or 8 plys rank the
players reasonably accurately. In his own infamous words,

"a stronger chess engine doesn't matter".

-- help bot