3 ms·

I think his method is straight forward, simple and well justified. He calculates "move match" agreement with engine's first line, move-match percentage, average

I think his method is straight forward, simple and well justified. He calculates "move match" agreement with engine's first line, move-match percentage, average error per move judged by computer, (uneven positions count less) and goes from there to calculate Raw Outlier Index. Here is the data: https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/data/Niemann/ https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/data/Niemann/ Here is some reasoning and links to articles: https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/ https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/

jsnell 4y ago
> Here is the data: https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/data/Niemann/ https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/data/Niemann/ Yes, that's what I mean by his presentation of results. That's a dozen text files with undocumented schemas, and no interpretation of the results or contextualizing them. > Here is some reasoning and links to articles: https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/ https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/ Yes, I've also seen that page, and tried reading the papers. You know what the outcome is? That the links to the research description, overview, papers, and talks are all dead.