Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 10:52:10 12/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
i have to diagree to christophes opinion. 3.5-0.5 is maybe unclear in computer-computer matches. but for human chess you cannot use the same statistics IMO since humans do plan in chess... computers play checkers. and anything can happen. IF computer programs would play a plan in chess, and would have 0.5 , it would be a loss too. the difference is: the one results is a quantiying thing, the other a qualifying thing. if you drink 3.5 glasses of wine and you drink 0.5 glass of another wine, and you cannot say which wine is better, than you are a computer. if you drink them and you can say to us which wine is older, which type of wine, where it came from and WHY it is better than the other wine, than you are a human beeing. the one results can only be seen quantifying , this needs statistics. the other can qualitfy the results, and such an interpretation does not need statistical methods. same counts IMO for chess. you can see it from the result part of the game, here we have 3.5 - 0.5 , and if you want, this is not enough. but you forgot that the result is only the number of glasses of a whine. not the taste. not the character of it. or maybe 3.5 is the price per glass, and the other glass costs 0.5 ! now you can be materialistic and say: the 3.5 $ glass of wine is better because it costs more. this would be a quantifying method to test the wine. but does it really help you ??? we have to differenciate IMO if we only count the result or if we want to taste the thing ! counting is not tasting.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.