Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:11:03 12/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 25, 2000 at 02:20:46, Christophe Theron wrote: >On December 24, 2000 at 17:15:47, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On December 24, 2000 at 13:11:49, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On December 24, 2000 at 09:09:27, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >>> >>>>My congratulations to Vishy Anand, for winning the >>>>FIDE World Championship 2000! >>>> >>>>3,5-0,5 in the final against Shirov, that leaves no >>>>discussion whatsoever. Anand was the best, remained >>>>unbeaten and scored a clear victory in the final. >>>>Well done! >>>> >>>>Jeroen >>> >>> >>>I am still absolutely amazed that a World Championship can be decided this way. >>> >>>A score of 3.5-0.5 is not statistically significant, not even with a low >>>confidence. >>> >> >> >>What a crap. > > >Thanks. Critisism from you tells me there must be some truth in what I say. in contradiction we didn't open the big stinking hole yet that is called home preparement. i didn't want to touch it yet, but in this post it's time to do so. > > > >>First of all all insignificant statistical elements that cause confusion >>were not allowed to join in this worldchamp in the first place. >> >>Secondly 3.5-0.5 in a final is very impressive. >> >>third did you forget how TOUGH anand had it to get into finals and how >>easily Shirov came there when looking who they played? >> >>Note that Shirov showed to be worlds best blitz player by >>knocking out people in blitz in a very convincing way! >> >>>It is now clear, at least amongst the experienced computers chess operators, >>>that such a result means NOTHING. >> >>You clearly don't see difference between what a computer is where any >>detail can distract scores or give weird results and a >>world championship mankind where no detail is getting done by random >>generator... > > >The kind of chess that computers play is not produced by a random generator. >BTW statistics about chess matches are independant of playing style or WHO or >WHAT is playing the match. >Why would human player escape from basic statistics? Because they have soul and >computers don't??? Ok let's adress SSDF. Though it's changing, tournaments book are very small in programs. Basically old versions of programs *always* play the same. The openingsbook of the best book is made by a player having 2163, no FIDE rating yet but he'll have that next year. 0403 6495632 Noomen J. M 2163 2* He can't even invent his own new theory, he just copies some lines as played by GMs. But the big trick is that at schroeder BV, and the same happens with other companies, they play more games as the tournament books are wide from other programs. Now you can play Anand, Kramnik or Kasparov, but they don't play like they played several years ago, and you SURE do not know in advance whether a certain line wins against them. Not to mention that it's highly unlikely that you are 100% sure you kill them, whereas in computerchess if you have tested a few thousands of games at home, you have tested basically your book against the *entire* tournament book of the opponent so you KNOW what happens at SSDF. This says something of course about how well tested your product is, but it also says it has nothing in common with mankind. You can surprise Shirov only if your novelty is *real* good, but you sure can't surprise him with a release of a new book. This where for example the book from Fritz6 and Nimzo 7.32 is simply more or less a copy of the NCO book, with exception a few lines called 'unclear' lines they have been played at autoplayer and after it was clear who won the line it is added for that side, without figuring out whether it *objectively* is best. Computerchess has nothing to do with objectivism, but everything with testing and killing old programs at home. This in contrast to mankind. If i play only NCO lines with white (i play 1.e4) then even against opponents of 22xx i'm not even sure whether those lines work. It can work 1 time against someone but then he either buys a few books, or he analysis till he finds a better move. It has happened only 1 time in my life that i fell for the same trick. It was against Eric de Haan. Still the game didn't go 100% similar as i thought i could improve somewhere, but i was quite sick when playing the same line. It was dead lost! Now you can't test in advance whether you are 100% sure going to win against Anand with a certain line. You can do however against fritz5. In world championships computerchess however both parties are prepared. Therefore the situation there is more similar as in the knockout world championship, with this exception that the FIDE knockout is statistically more significant, but if always the same wins, what are we talking about? > > > >>>I think that the computer chess community is on some topics much more advanced >>>than the human chess community. For example the human chess community has >>>adopted the ELO rating system, but still ignores most of the basic rules of this >>>system (margin of error, level of confidence). The computer chess community is >>>aware of these rules, and you can find these parameters published in the SSDF >>>rating list for example. >> >>A knockout championship has nothing to do with rating, but that's why >>we don't put a crown onto the person with highest rating, but let them >>play matches! >> >>> Christophe >> >>The only criticizable thing that happened IMHO is that the >>final was held in Teheran, a place where i would never go. >And apparently statistics do not apply in Teheran. That's the only place on >earth where statistics cannot be applied, I assume. > Christophe Weird french redenation is getting applied by you.
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.