Hello again:
countrychess wrote:Hello Jesús,
Thanks for your kind words and your interest in my tournaments.
The elorating of Quazar is based on the previous version 0.3b. Let's hope it will finish the tournament as first or as second. Engines ranked 1 and 2 both will participate in the 3rd qualifying round of the Champions League. I always like to see new programmers taking over strong but no longer updated engines, as SmarThink and Bison seems to be.
Uralochka didn't play 20 games so far; that's why it is not rated yet.
Nice tool you created! It is based on eloratings now I guess; so it makes the prodictions somewhat predictable. Would it be an idea to import several ranking lists of someone's choice (cegt, ccrl and others), then take an average and finally make a prediction? So then, the program probably will make more relevant predictions and would not only be based on my personal and very incomplete elorating list. Just a little suggestion.
Best regards,
Geert
Assigning rating of 0.3b version to 0.4 explains everything (I thought it and I was right!): Dmitry Morozov (the author of Quazar) claimed an improvement of around 300 Elo between 0.3b and 0.4 versions, and he was right.
Do not think that this tool is incredible! It had only 30 lines of code, probably less (I can not say the exact number because I deleted it once I posted my message!).
I am not even a programmer, so I do not know how to import data... I only saved a Notepad with those twelve ratings, then let the programme do its work. So, you will have to search the ratings in those lists (for example in two: CCRL and CEGT) and then write it in a Notepad... I guess that it is a heavy task; the predictions can also be pondered by the number of games of each list (involving the desired engines, if all the engines have established ratings in each list). But again the task is heavy for the user, even more difficult that before. Just an example: for twelve engines and two lists, you must write 24 different numbers in the Notepad; if you also take into account the number of games of each engine, then you double the input numbers (48 in this case), so it is not very practical for the user (however, it is very easy for the programmer, myself in this case). And I have not included the time of searching engine ratings in the lists.
The final decision is up to you: if you want, I can build an executable with your preference (ratings from one list or two, number of games or not number of games...) and upload it, although I want to advice you about the multiple drawbacks. As a side note, I only got output of the percentages, so I had to copy and paste all the engine names and their ratings, line by line. You can expect that a good programmer can solve all these drawbacks, but I am not a good programmer, I am not even a programmer, so my programming skills are very, very limited... bad luck.
Regards from Spain.
Ajedrecista.
