No problem. I remember way back making the decision myself to match the tone back then, there's little point in being polite when the lead being given is as passive aggressive as it once was. Things have improved, I think.Milos wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:31 amI apologize for the language used.chrisw wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:04 pmHaha! It didn't need to be personalised with "your" assumptions, "the" assumptions" would be enough. Or "ridiculous", when "Ethereal is likely 70 pts below Fire, as these blitz test results show ..." would be enough to get the meaning across. But I suppose it wouldn't be Milos without the added chilli pepper. What is unseasoned Milos like, actually? One of the smarter ones, in my opinion. But, anyway, if you think need the added seasoning, up to you.Milos wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:18 am Just a small illustration how ridiculous are your assumptions (regarding Premier Division):
http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.p ... 31#p772531
Okay, so back to boring factuality-land ...
Assumptions are assumptions. Best thing to do with them is make them clear. Well, I try to. Stated already: I don't really know where Fire should be, in relation to the others. Maybe 100pts or so behind the top three, according to the lists. Is that an unfair assumption? Is it being worked on? Gimme data.
As to the relative position of Ethereal. Well, the programmer suggested when I asked, without being committal, IIRC, that it was around 3300 or so, using the CCRL 40 scaling of elos. When Ethereal played Round 4, it got a tournament elo increase of about 70pts, which I factored into its actual elo at 50% and set it at 3335 for Round 3. It ended Round 3 with no change to its tournament given elo. So I put it in this Round at 3334. TCEC chose 3341, not much different.
Ethereal is doing well enough this round, TCEC is giving it currently an elo improvement of +50, and my algorithm says something similar. If promoted and all else stays equal, my elo-giving algorithm will probably start Ethereal off at 3360 in Premier Division.
So, like I said in the previous post, which it looks like you didn't actually carefully read:
"The elos of the other six engines are more likely to be problematic (too low, because progress)."
If you want to suggest a rough figure for Fire, including a "worked on" estimate, feel free, I am all ears.
Regarding topic, I have a problem in general with TCEC "ratings". These are not real data but some kind of mishmash of a priory CCRL ratings and live rating change based on actual TCEC games of that season. Problem is that person who made the calculation in TCEC (completely wrongly) assumed due to TCEC conditions that CCRL prior plays very small role, while in reality CCRL prior should have more than a dominant effect on rating calculation and TCEC games very small effect if any.
So +50, +100Elo rating gains based on few TCEC games are nothing but BS. Also assuming that since CCRL tests last official version that is like 3 months old and there is a new version playing in TCEC it could gain 50 and more Elo is simply dreaming or having no clue how painstakingly slow improvement of strong engines is.
I have a problem with my own "ratings", but they are just a game, about a game, consisting of games about a game that masquerades as modelling life but doesn't. Anyway, the results look better expressed as a spread (see recent listing). Guessed that Fire had made some progress btw.