Give me the weekend for a preliminary shallow standard analysis.
Later (don't hold your breath), I'll try some more sophisticated (?

Moderator: Ras
Finished up entering datas, and calculated the total scores. Have sent it to your id. Thanks for the work, will be looking forward to the interesting piece of research. If there's not enough rating information besides WBEC, CEGT or CCRL, you may use some other ratings list as wellnoctiferus wrote:Great .
Give me the weekend for a preliminary shallow standard analysis.
Later (don't hold your breath), I'll try some more sophisticated (?) techniques...hoping they work...
Yes, ratings of some engines are missing because those engines haven't been tested by the respective testing team, or they have only tested it in multi-cpu, or they had tested a completely different version.noctiferus wrote:I think that the ratings you give are more than enough.
The only trouble are the misssing values.
At first analysis, missing engines sould be ignored: filling up missings needs at least a 2-step procedure.. it is a bit time consuming, so better analyses will follow... later...
Sure, Have fun with it!noctiferus wrote:Relax, Swami, let's see what comes out...
Code: Select all
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
elo | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
sts10 | 2.272232 2.96261 0.77 0.448 -3.736218 8.280683
sts20 | 3.20341 3.01614 1.06 0.295 -2.913606 9.320425
sts30 | .4575349 2.331547 0.20 0.846 -4.271063 5.186132
sts40 | 2.358127 2.152502 1.10 0.281 -2.00735 6.723604
sts50 | 7.583491 3.162585 2.40 0.022 1.16947 13.99751
sts60 | -2.137339 2.555934 -0.84 0.409 -7.321013 3.046336
sts70 | .8115352 2.652622 0.31 0.761 -4.568232 6.191302
sts80 | 4.939367 2.18094 2.26 0.030 .516216 9.362519
_cons | 1342.862 209.7266 6.40 0.000 917.5169 1768.207
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, according to this piece of information, one could conclude that STS 6.0 is the least important of all test suites which even has a negative co-efficient and that it is better not to do well in it? Looks little confusing and probably not true.Edmund wrote:Thats what I am getting after a linear regression:
r² = 0.6577
sqr(mse) = 68.912
sts10-80 are the coefficients
cons is the constant
the result is the elo in the CEGT scale
Code: Select all
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ elo | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- sts10 | 2.272232 2.96261 0.77 0.448 -3.736218 8.280683 sts20 | 3.20341 3.01614 1.06 0.295 -2.913606 9.320425 sts30 | .4575349 2.331547 0.20 0.846 -4.271063 5.186132 sts40 | 2.358127 2.152502 1.10 0.281 -2.00735 6.723604 sts50 | 7.583491 3.162585 2.40 0.022 1.16947 13.99751 sts60 | -2.137339 2.555934 -0.84 0.409 -7.321013 3.046336 sts70 | .8115352 2.652622 0.31 0.761 -4.568232 6.191302 sts80 | 4.939367 2.18094 2.26 0.030 .516216 9.362519 _cons | 1342.862 209.7266 6.40 0.000 917.5169 1768.207 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the coefficients should be constrained to be positive, otherwise it means that the higher score get an engine in STS 6 the weaker it isEdmund wrote:Code: Select all
sts60 | -2.137339 2.555934 -0.84 0.409 -7.321013 3.046336