Oh, how silly I am not understanding Don's humor :-(
I think it's since cgos's rating system depends on the opponents you
played with and the order of opponents you played with.

On 2/3/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't FatMan an anchor and has a fixed 1800 rating?
>
> On 2/3/08, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But FatMan is still 1800!    I wonder if FatMan improved causing the
> > deflation?  :-)
> >
> > - Don
> >
> >
> > Hideki Kato wrote:
> > > Hmm, mogo-pr-1core is also getting lower rating these days. It had
> > > been over 2500, 2525 at max I remember, but is 2476 today.
> > >
> > > -Hideki
> > >
> > > Yamato: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > >> Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I'm not sure what to think about the following:
> > >>>
> > >>> Leela 0.3.0 vs Leela 0.3.7, 455 game match
> > >>> 177 vs 278 => +78 ELO points for Leela 0.3.7
> > >>>
> > >>> CGOS rating
> > >>>
> > >>> Leela_0.3.0_1CPU  2335
> > >>> Leela_0.3.7_2CPU  2333
> > >>>
> > >>> Hmm......but also
> > >>>
> > >>> Zen-0.9  2386
> > >>> Zen-1.0  2385
> > >>>
> > >> I think it is CGOS deflation.
> > >> The evidence is:
> > >>
> > >> ControlBoy 1546   8/8  100.00  <- Zen-0.9
> > >> ControlBoy 1460   5/5  100.00  <- Zen-1.0
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Yamato
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> computer-go mailing list
> > >> computer-go@computer-go.org
> > >> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> > >>
> > > --
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato)
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > computer-go mailing list
> > > computer-go@computer-go.org
> > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > computer-go mailing list
> > computer-go@computer-go.org
> > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> >
>
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Reply via email to